The measurement the policy conversation has been waiting for.
We watch public job posting endpoints every day and record what they do. Dated. Verifiable. Independent. Built for citation.
Every figure in the current ghost jobs debate comes from a company with something to sell. The estimates run from 14 percent to 47 percent because no two use the same definition. The Congressional Research Service told Congress in April 2025 there are no official statistics. A U.S. Senator wrote to three federal agencies the same week asking whether any of them had ever measured this.
We are not a vendor with a product opinion. We are an observational registry. We watch what job postings do. We record it with dates, at the posting level, in a way that is independently reproducible. We publish the methodology before we publish any number. We publish our corrections when we are wrong.
That is the standard this conversation has been missing.
The bills that are moving right now.
Five jurisdictions have active or enacted legislation targeting ghost job postings. Here is the current status of each, with links to primary sources.
Full evidentiary records, statutory texts, and committee hearing transcripts are cataloged in our primary legislative registry.
What is in the record.
We check public ATS endpoints and employer careers sites daily across major platforms. For each posting we observe, we record the date it first appeared, every subsequent confirmation it was still live, any change to its title, salary range, or description, and the date it was last seen before going dark.
We do not infer employer intent. We do not estimate. We record what is observable and say plainly what is not.
- •Longitudinal posting lifecycle data by employer, sector, and geography, at the posting level.
- •Comparison of observed posting duration against published workforce actions: WARN notices, SEC filings, bankruptcy proceedings.
- •Time-series analysis of posting and reposting patterns before and after major labor market events.
- •Employer-level records suitable as evidence in an enforcement proceeding, with a dated methodology exhibit.
- •National prevalence estimates. Our archive started in August 2026 and covers a subset of the employer population. We do not publish numbers we cannot defend.
- •Claims about employer intent. We observe behavior. Conclusions about intent are for counsel and courts.
- •Coverage of platforms where observation is prohibited. Individual URL checks are available on request and are legally distinct from bulk observation.
How we work with government agencies.
Pilot Engagement
A structured pilot covering a defined employer set, sector, or geography over a defined period. Deliverables include a methodology exhibit, the raw observation data, and a written summary. Priced to make the first engagement low-risk and easy to approve within existing budget authority.
Enforcement Evidence
Posting-level longitudinal records for a specific employer, covering the period under investigation, with a methodology exhibit suitable for a legal proceeding. We testify to our methodology. We do not testify to employer intent.
Research Access
Academic and policy researchers can request access to aggregate data under a data use agreement. Free for non-commercial research. Request form and current data dictionary at /research.
Legislative Testimony
We are available to present methodology and findings to legislative committees. We present observations. What the data means for policy is your determination.
The record is open. Built for citation.
Our numbered report series at /reports publishes findings with permanent URLs and machine-readable data alongside every document. Each report names what it cannot answer as clearly as what it can. A CRS staffer or a legislative counsel can cite a specific report, a specific URL, and a specific version of the methodology, and know it will still resolve in two years.
Our methodology is versioned. Prior versions stay live at their own URLs. Our corrections log publishes every error we have found and corrected, with the cause, the fix, and the date.
These are primary sources. Use them as such.
Talk to us before you draft the RFP.
Government procurement is built around incumbents. If you write the requirements after talking to us, they'll fit what we can actually do. If you write them before, they may not.
Tell us what you're trying to measure, what you're trying to prove, or what you've been asked to produce. We'll tell you honestly what the record currently supports and what it doesn't.
The Hiring Record is an independent observational registry. We do not accept payment from employers for favorable treatment. We do not remove accurate observations. We publish all corrections openly.
Conflict rules stated in full at hiringrecord.com/methodology#conflict-rules