HN Who is hiring job posts over time
18 comments
The []() syntax doesn't work on posts. Clickable google sheets link:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18kLWHkrEedpl1eXzAht_...
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18kLWHkrEedpl1eXzAht_...
Interesting that the url within the parentheses isn't recognized.
EDIT - actually, none of the urls are recognized as links.
EDIT - actually, none of the urls are recognized as links.
If they were, it would be trivial to get HN readers to click malicious links.
If HN readers can't be trained not to click malicious links, then no one can xD
I think it is not just readers of HN. Do search engines read urls (unlinked ones) to build their index? Cause then it will be very easy for spammers to post links & take advantage of HN's high rating.
I might be wrong here, but I think most search engines ignore links from websites with open submissions (like HN or reddit) exactly for that reason.
I think it’s just that urls in the text part of a submission don’t get converted to links.
I think it's hard to gauge who's actually hiring by reading HN "Who's Hiring?" posts or looking at job boards. I think a lot of companies maintain longstanding job posts without actually finding/hiring people. Or they keep interviewing but never commit. Like a fisherman with bait always in the water, never reeling anyone in. The posts should really be renamed to "Ask HN: Who's Interviewing?" or "Ask HN: Who's Fishing?"
I interviewed at some of the startups that constantly post on Who's Hiring. Long process and no hire. I check on Linkedin their growth from time to time and it's basically flat.
Yeah, I have as good a CV as anyone and I've never gotten anything off any of these hiring threads. I suspect many posts are just straight up resume collection schemes. If I post on the freelancers thread, I tend to average one reply and it is always some recruiter spamming a job they have, never actual freelance work.
I found my most successful job via HN back in 2011 before the whoishiring bot was made, when these posts were less formal and structured. (Not sure how good or bad this is internationally, but great in the USA).
The companies I’ve been with, I’ve always pushed recruiting to post here as a high quality source for leads.
The companies I’ve been with, I’ve always pushed recruiting to post here as a high quality source for leads.
[deleted]
Active fishing vs passive. Job boards and sites are usually much more passive, but you have to "renew" your Who's Hiring posts
> I think a lot of companies maintain longstanding job posts ...
Or, they are growing at a rate that supports a hire every month or three?
Or, they are growing at a rate that supports a hire every month or three?
If you apply to a post with a qualified resume and don't get a response or get rejected for trivial reasons, and then see the job posted again the following month, that argues against the steady growth theory.
Hiring has slowed to a crawl, and the hardest hit appear to be junior/low level devs not going into the startup space.
I'm seeing a lot of hiring for senior positions. I'm getting more, not fewer emails for interviews as a CTO. Meanwhile, it seems like unless a new grad is headed to a FAANG they are not finding jobs the way they were a year ago.
This is how things started in 2007, anecdotally. The ladder got pulled up earlier in the year, and then right around the holiday season everything fell apart. It took a good 2-3 years for everything to recover, but in that time salaries were down roughly 20-30%.
I'm seeing a lot of hiring for senior positions. I'm getting more, not fewer emails for interviews as a CTO. Meanwhile, it seems like unless a new grad is headed to a FAANG they are not finding jobs the way they were a year ago.
This is how things started in 2007, anecdotally. The ladder got pulled up earlier in the year, and then right around the holiday season everything fell apart. It took a good 2-3 years for everything to recover, but in that time salaries were down roughly 20-30%.
I made well over 100 applications last April - May; as a grad student close to their master's at a top EU University. I had more success from FAANG companies than startups. I eventually landed a very low paying job at a fintech startup but they had financial issues. Come mid july I found myself interviewing for a FAANG company, and today I passed probation period.
The fact that I was good enough for a FAANG company, but unhirable to almost everyone else is a bit beyond me.
The fact that I was good enough for a FAANG company, but unhirable to almost everyone else is a bit beyond me.
FAANG have the resources to train juniors, startups like juniors a lot but usually don't have the resources to absorb employees who need hand holding.
I understand that, but even here I am not given any handholding, we discuss what needs to be done, if needed I write technical document, get feedback, and then implement.
It's possible that your work environment is set up to provide the necessary guidance even though it doesn't feel like handholding to you. At smaller companies you might just get a vague description of a task and be left on your own for weeks to figure it out.
That's very likely, ask and ye shall receive is very common here, and the company gives the resources to anyone and everyone to learn.
From my POV, this is like university, but easier, and I get paid.
From my POV, this is like university, but easier, and I get paid.
I've seen it said on HN say FAANG hiring is as much to keep other people from hiring you/to stop you from creating startups, as it is to have you do a work for them
The scale of hiring at FAANG companies is on another level. Google's summer intern class is probably much larger than the number of FTEs at my current job. They need to contact tens or hundreds of thousands of prospective candidates. I'm not shocked some people have an easier time getting interviews from FAANG companies.
FAANG care about education credentials, startups care about pragmatism and getting things done.
How do you evaluate that the person can't get things done without even interviewing them? I had 3 internships, and built all sorts of systems.
Only a single startup gave me the chance to prove that I can get things done.
FAANG on the other hand seems to care about getting things done, or as we say, having a bias for action.
Only a single startup gave me the chance to prove that I can get things done.
FAANG on the other hand seems to care about getting things done, or as we say, having a bias for action.
Maybe some of them do, but Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Amazon didn't care about my education, which is good because I don't have a degree.
Where did you look for jobs in the EU - as in which message boards/websites etc...?
LinkedIn and company websites mostly.
I see. And how did you find the company websites? The reason I ask is could the type of companies in your filter be the ones just not doing quality work? And interestingly my acquaintance is having the opposite problem where they are willing to train but are having to work very hard to find good CS grads in the EU.
I was looking mostly for companies in Scandinavia, NL and Germany through LinkedIn, or just big names. Some companies had easy apply, others sent you to their website.
I have been told by people in r/cscareerquestionsEU that I may be too expensive due to master's but the "absence" of experience to make me unemployable.
I have been told by people in r/cscareerquestionsEU that I may be too expensive due to master's but the "absence" of experience to make me unemployable.
This must vary by industry. I just left one big bank to go work for another one. Both are hiring like mad, both junior and senior roles. Both actually have pretty amazing internship programs and at least one has an incredible program for veterans.
Ppl really seem to forget that its highly dependent on country you live in.
Developing or fresh developed countries have insane growth opportunities for devs.
Companies are running away from US and similar expensive/costly places.
Developing or fresh developed countries have insane growth opportunities for devs.
Companies are running away from US and similar expensive/costly places.
[deleted]
Just to add on to this, pretty huge demand for SWE/SRE roles in platform development (internal and public cloud) and security (compliance, automation, etc)
Theoretically it shouldn't vary much by either industry or technical role, since qualified tech people are basically fungible in the sense that they can train themselves to basic competence in any area, so the fast hiring side should be seeking out workers from the slow hiring pools to where it all evens out.
I would definitely agree if we’re talking leaves on the org tree. Once you start building new layers you really need people that have been there and done that (more aligned to use case/industry than specific tech) or you end up with thee we blind leading the blind.
[deleted]
Enterprise hiring is a mystery to me. Big companies, especially banks are so flush with money that they should be able to hire any number of decent developers in any general area just like turning on a faucet: allow remote work and offer too much money to refuse. I agree you want relevant experts to get things started, but for that you just hire a few the same way and use them to train other leaders.
If what you really mean is that banks are trying to poach the same handful of employees from each other, then I can see why that would be a challenge.
From a big company's careers page, enterprise hiring starts with application systems requiring accounts and asking questions like they're running a federal background check. It's a big signal of disinterest. When you say banks are hiring like mad I trust you don't mean they're relying on experts going through the front door.
If what you really mean is that banks are trying to poach the same handful of employees from each other, then I can see why that would be a challenge.
From a big company's careers page, enterprise hiring starts with application systems requiring accounts and asking questions like they're running a federal background check. It's a big signal of disinterest. When you say banks are hiring like mad I trust you don't mean they're relying on experts going through the front door.
A year ago when the pandemic was still front of mind for everyone? Finding a job when you are early career is almost always tough. Sure some times are tougher than others but its almost always very difficult unless you have a top degree or spent a lot of time doing interview prep.
Yep, the pandemic caused tech companies to hire like crazy because so much money shifted from physical goods to services to digital. Many companies saw it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to catch a long living change at the start. Didn’t really work out, hence many of the layoffs, but the job market a year ago was so hot it could melt steel.
> This is how things started in 2007, anecdotally. The ladder got pulled up earlier in the year, and then right around the holiday season everything fell apart. It took a good 2-3 years for everything to recover, but in that time salaries were down roughly 20-30%.
Yes. It really sucks for new graduates and entry-level because all of a sudden you are competing with people with years of experience for the same salary and position.
Also importantly, the consequences of graduating into a recession can be quite lasting. Based on research going into the last recession ('08), it takes up to 10 for the effects to disappear[1]. And if your base case is the last couple of years in software - well it seems likely that was a huge bubble that won't be replicated any time soon.
---
[1] https://www.nber.org/digest/nov06/career-effects-graduating-...
Yes. It really sucks for new graduates and entry-level because all of a sudden you are competing with people with years of experience for the same salary and position.
Also importantly, the consequences of graduating into a recession can be quite lasting. Based on research going into the last recession ('08), it takes up to 10 for the effects to disappear[1]. And if your base case is the last couple of years in software - well it seems likely that was a huge bubble that won't be replicated any time soon.
---
[1] https://www.nber.org/digest/nov06/career-effects-graduating-...
I wasn't entry-level at the time but I was somewhat shifting roles when dot-com deflated. I was fortunately able to land a new and, in many ways better, position quickly but compensation definitely took a hit over the next number of years. Everything worked out in the end as it ended up being the on-ramp for a good position (and another role change). But it wouldn't have been an ideal situation for at least some.
Nice addition of the S&P500 as market reference.
Is there any easy way to correct for HN traffic? For example, is that what's driving the change in volume in 2016?
Is there any easy way to correct for HN traffic? For example, is that what's driving the change in volume in 2016?
> Is there any easy way to correct for HN traffic?
Hmmm I have a couple ideas, but nothing simple w/o some longer scraping or being able to find HN traffic data elsewhere.
Hmmm I have a couple ideas, but nothing simple w/o some longer scraping or being able to find HN traffic data elsewhere.
It seems 2020-2022 was boom for tech industry. Now the rate is going backing to pre-2020 which shows it was already in decline! That is quite surprising.
Yea, 2018-2020 sees a downward trend in hiring, while the S&P500 was still growing steadily.
Thing is though, HN Hiring posts seem very FAANG and (even more) startup-biased? The S&P500 is more than that.
Thing is though, HN Hiring posts seem very FAANG and (even more) startup-biased? The S&P500 is more than that.
I would say that FAANG is not part of HN Who is hiring at all.
It seems to be almost 100% small and medium tech startups.
It seems to be almost 100% small and medium tech startups.
This makes sense though, no? If you want to (consider) work at FAANG, it's not hard to know how to apply, and whether or not the front door is the best approach.
On the other hand, lot's of companies that show up in places like HN you might not even know exist.
On the other hand, lot's of companies that show up in places like HN you might not even know exist.
I’ve occasionally seen a “my team at AirBnB is hiring” post but you’re probably right.
True and a lot fewer remote worldwide jobs than when it's pre-pandemic. Remote (US) -demic is spreading pretty fast. I guess startups don't have resource to use those expensive EoR service.
I disagree. I am one who looked for worldwide remote during the last 3 years. A LOT of those positions listed only as “remote” on “Who is hiring” were actually “remote (us)”. Posters just assumed that candidates were Americans.
I think now they learned to specify in the job post that what they meannis actually “remote (us)”. Which is great, saves everyone’s time.
I think now they learned to specify in the job post that what they meannis actually “remote (us)”. Which is great, saves everyone’s time.
Your point is also true. Though I still insist in pre-pandemic, most of US companies who hire remote hired a lots of non-american. Now americans are very good at remote working, they just choose american which is kinda good decision.
(I'm outside of the US)
(I'm outside of the US)
Judging by this chart 2015-2020 and 2020-2022 were both booms. We are now at 2015 and 2020 levels and might go lower.
Interest rates were on the rise in 2019. Venture-backed enterprises are very sensitive to the cost of money.
Number of comments on this and previous posts that this data is not useful for one reason or another (HN is a small slice, maybe employers are changing behavior, want to normalize by site activity, ...). It's good to note possible problems with data, but we should be sure not to throw the baby out with the bathwater - this is a useful data set giving evidence that hiring is slowing in late 2022.
This is awesome! I saw the number going down the last few months but good to see it in context with last year. And also the S&P 500.
After successfully changing my poor grades by maverick and i was able to graduate as one of the best students and finally working in well paid organization, you’re only hurting yourself if you pretend your grades don’t matter.. visit Maverick Angelos today for grades change at BLUEHACKANGELS407@ Gmail com . Colleges look at grades, scholarship organizations look at grades, and employers look at grades too. However, you don’t need to have a 4.0 to be successful. But Good Grades can show every amazing quality you have, and colleges, scholarship organizations, and employers understand that too. Your school degree does not determine your life. However, good performance can earn you a good reputation and success.
Also for anyone looking to draw conclusions here, remember that the HN crowd including the hiring thread is a very small slice of the tech industry generally, and for most people you only need to find one job for your job search to be over.
> for most people you only need to find one job for your job search to be over.
This is interesting as it relates to price rather than ability to find a job. Things would have to change dramatically to reach a point where someone won't pay you minimum wage to do tech work, but as difficulty in fulfilling positions declines the need to pay extraordinary and increasing salaries will decline in kind. This does give a good idea about what's ahead for compensation adjustments. The double digit percentage pay bumps people were taking advantage of over the last couple of years is no doubt over (for now).
This is interesting as it relates to price rather than ability to find a job. Things would have to change dramatically to reach a point where someone won't pay you minimum wage to do tech work, but as difficulty in fulfilling positions declines the need to pay extraordinary and increasing salaries will decline in kind. This does give a good idea about what's ahead for compensation adjustments. The double digit percentage pay bumps people were taking advantage of over the last couple of years is no doubt over (for now).
I'm someone who is indeed struggling to find a job, and in my case salary has little to do with it since so far I've been filtered before that's been an issue. There's actually no way to compete on price even if I wanted to, since employers are looking for luxury goods and offering to work for very cheap would send the wrong signal. I understand the market is very different if you have a great resume and everything is lined up.
So I think a lower volume in the hiring thread has a stronger impact on people who are struggling, since they necessarily need to apply to a high number of places, compared to the impact on people who are going to get multiple competitive offers regardless.
So I think a lower volume in the hiring thread has a stronger impact on people who are struggling, since they necessarily need to apply to a high number of places, compared to the impact on people who are going to get multiple competitive offers regardless.
Employers are looking for good programmers, since a bad programmer can do active damage to a codebase. They are willing to pay a higher price to try and avoid those situations so offering work at a lower rate isn't going to be attractive to those companies.
There are places like Upwork and fiverr where people are hiring cheap programmers to work on things like their small wordpress site. They aren't fun to work on and there is a lot of competition from lower cost of living parts of the world, but they do exist.
Once you have a "foot in the door" and some proven industry experience you'll find getting work a lot easier. It took me about six months after I first started applying to secure my first development job in 2019, and now I have tons of recruiters messaging me daily about new opportunities.
There are places like Upwork and fiverr where people are hiring cheap programmers to work on things like their small wordpress site. They aren't fun to work on and there is a lot of competition from lower cost of living parts of the world, but they do exist.
Once you have a "foot in the door" and some proven industry experience you'll find getting work a lot easier. It took me about six months after I first started applying to secure my first development job in 2019, and now I have tons of recruiters messaging me daily about new opportunities.
From the employer side it's like being a consumer shopping for reliable goods, such as clothing or appliances. You don't want something suspiciously cheap but you also know the marginal gains at the high end are probably minimal or maybe even negative. What you really want is to find a brand you trust at a deep discount from a reputable seller.
Brands go on sale to move excess inventory or to try to convert skeptical shoppers into becoming loyal to the brand later on at full price. However for better or worse there's no way for a job seeker to put themselves temporarily on sale. You can't work at a discount without devaluing yourself. This is important to understand because it means that it's not entirely about job seekers simply accepting lower pay.
Brands go on sale to move excess inventory or to try to convert skeptical shoppers into becoming loyal to the brand later on at full price. However for better or worse there's no way for a job seeker to put themselves temporarily on sale. You can't work at a discount without devaluing yourself. This is important to understand because it means that it's not entirely about job seekers simply accepting lower pay.
> since employers are looking for luxury goods and offering to work for very cheap would send the wrong signal.
I'm not sure that's the right perspective. It's true that offering Google a chance to hire you for minimum wage isn't going to win you a seat. But most potential employers aren't putting themselves in front of the market because they believe nobody out there will work for less than a healthy six figures (or whatever).
I walk down the street of a small town and see endless businesses who understand where they could improve their business with tech, but also know they'd be bankrupted in a matter of days if they had to pay FAANG-level salaries. They don't even bother trying to hire tech talent. At $7.25 per hour, however, now you've got their interest.
I'm not sure that's the right perspective. It's true that offering Google a chance to hire you for minimum wage isn't going to win you a seat. But most potential employers aren't putting themselves in front of the market because they believe nobody out there will work for less than a healthy six figures (or whatever).
I walk down the street of a small town and see endless businesses who understand where they could improve their business with tech, but also know they'd be bankrupted in a matter of days if they had to pay FAANG-level salaries. They don't even bother trying to hire tech talent. At $7.25 per hour, however, now you've got their interest.
I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly but the tech market of literally walking down the street and offering to help random businesses for $7.25 an hour is so far from HN hiring, or really any salaried tech hiring, that I'm not sure why you bring it up.
Most tech employers who make job posts might be happy if you suggest a salary near the bottom of the range they've already decided for the position, but will absolutely take it as a negative if you come in far below their range, especially if it's clear you're doing that because you're desperate.
Most tech employers who make job posts might be happy if you suggest a salary near the bottom of the range they've already decided for the position, but will absolutely take it as a negative if you come in far below their range, especially if it's clear you're doing that because you're desperate.
> I'm not sure what you're arguing exactly
I'm not arguing anything. There is nothing here to argue. Nor would I enter into an argument. I can think of nothing more boring.
> literally walking down the street and offering to help random businesses for $7.25 an hour is so far from HN hiring, or really any salaried tech hiring
Because the topic is price. Price exists specifically to guide allocation of scarce resources. The scarcer a resource, the higher the price, the more buyers pushed out of the market. Conversely, the more available the resource, the lower the price, the more buyers able to participate in the market. Just plain old supply and demand.
Like I said originally, things would have to change dramatically for things to end up where nobody would hire you even for minimum wage. Without some kind of fundamental shift, there is effectively no chance of developers not being able to find work. What is more realistic is someone not being able to find work at the price they'd like. If you're accustomed to making $200k per year, get laid off, and those hiring are only offering $120k that can be a hard pill to swallow. Many will hold out for a better offer. Eventually, though, hunger sets in and you may be forced to take the $120k job. If things are really bad, $120k might be more than you can hope for.
> I'm not sure why you bring it up
There was some confusion about the earlier comment and I found enjoyment in expanding upon it. Perhaps there still is confusion, but oh well.
I'm not arguing anything. There is nothing here to argue. Nor would I enter into an argument. I can think of nothing more boring.
> literally walking down the street and offering to help random businesses for $7.25 an hour is so far from HN hiring, or really any salaried tech hiring
Because the topic is price. Price exists specifically to guide allocation of scarce resources. The scarcer a resource, the higher the price, the more buyers pushed out of the market. Conversely, the more available the resource, the lower the price, the more buyers able to participate in the market. Just plain old supply and demand.
Like I said originally, things would have to change dramatically for things to end up where nobody would hire you even for minimum wage. Without some kind of fundamental shift, there is effectively no chance of developers not being able to find work. What is more realistic is someone not being able to find work at the price they'd like. If you're accustomed to making $200k per year, get laid off, and those hiring are only offering $120k that can be a hard pill to swallow. Many will hold out for a better offer. Eventually, though, hunger sets in and you may be forced to take the $120k job. If things are really bad, $120k might be more than you can hope for.
> I'm not sure why you bring it up
There was some confusion about the earlier comment and I found enjoyment in expanding upon it. Perhaps there still is confusion, but oh well.
We're talking about different ends of the market. You're talking about the high end where sought-after workers get multiple competitive offers and big raises from switching jobs frequently. In that case a hiring downturn means less offers, less switching and less raises. I'm talking about the low end where every employer has set a floor of let's say $120k for their developer positions, and if for some reason every employer decides that a job seeker is worth less than that, that job seeker won't be able to get a job as a developer. In that case the hard pill to swallow isn't accepting less money, it's leaving the field. It's possible for the floor to decrease over time to match the perceived value of that job seeker, but worker compensation is sticky so this would require a long downturn, during which time the job seeker will become even less valuable due to having been forced out of the field.
This all leads into the question of how rational and efficient the hiring market for developers is. I would say this is at least an open question, to put it mildly.
This all leads into the question of how rational and efficient the hiring market for developers is. I would say this is at least an open question, to put it mildly.
> We're talking about different ends of the market
I am quite specifically talking about price. Maybe you still carry confusion. Maybe you replied to the wrong thread. Maybe you're desperate for that argument you hoped I was engaging in. But whatever it is, we're not talking about that. That is certain.
I am quite specifically talking about price. Maybe you still carry confusion. Maybe you replied to the wrong thread. Maybe you're desperate for that argument you hoped I was engaging in. But whatever it is, we're not talking about that. That is certain.
In terms of price, I've been saying that parts of the developer market work like Veblen goods while I think you've been saying it's all ordinary goods. You started us down this road earlier, maybe unintentionally, by questioning my statement that employers are looking for luxury goods.
> by questioning my statement that employers are looking for luxury goods.
I explicitly acknowledged and agreed with your statement. What you said jives with what I said. Which stands to reason as there is nothing to argue here, as we covered earlier.
Indeed, you originally came at the subject from a different angle and I did point that out to orient ourselves on the same plane to make communication easier, but nothing about the subject changes as it relates to the angle of approach. The destination is the same no matter what direction you come from.
We can certainly work from different angles, but it will be more work. That said, I'm not sure what is left to work on. Your comment merely indicates that you also recognize that we're not coming at this from the same angle, which is something that we already established many comments ago. This suggests to me that the meat of discussion has already reached its natural end.
I explicitly acknowledged and agreed with your statement. What you said jives with what I said. Which stands to reason as there is nothing to argue here, as we covered earlier.
Indeed, you originally came at the subject from a different angle and I did point that out to orient ourselves on the same plane to make communication easier, but nothing about the subject changes as it relates to the angle of approach. The destination is the same no matter what direction you come from.
We can certainly work from different angles, but it will be more work. That said, I'm not sure what is left to work on. Your comment merely indicates that you also recognize that we're not coming at this from the same angle, which is something that we already established many comments ago. This suggests to me that the meat of discussion has already reached its natural end.
Related from October 2022 "Lowest “Who is hiring?” Post Count in 30 Months" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33083279
I have been getting a low volume of offers in the last few months. But the compensation I'm being offered is very high. Hiring freezes may be masking a specialist > generalist trend.
Yeah, same. If you're a specialist and happen to have an in-demand skillset (backend, dist sys, GoLang), the volume of offers has been lower but still getting plenty of interest.
As someone else pointed out, this is just HN, a small part of the bigger picture. Its interesting, but in all honesty, I'll believe it when I see it. For the past ~3 years I've heard talk that last year X was a boom but this year Y is declining, then the year after I hear that Y was a boom but this year is a decline, and on the cycle goes.
> just HN, a small part of the bigger picture.
Yep, totally, very small picture.
Personal experience, though, I was laid off in August 2022, first time in my 18+ year career. I found something else, but recently, many friends and ex-coworkers also were laid off from twitter, meta, and other techs.
Hence I finally had time on my hands to code this up while waiting on interviews and such.
Yep, totally, very small picture.
Personal experience, though, I was laid off in August 2022, first time in my 18+ year career. I found something else, but recently, many friends and ex-coworkers also were laid off from twitter, meta, and other techs.
Hence I finally had time on my hands to code this up while waiting on interviews and such.
A couple years ago I made something similar (2019), also trying to analize trends based in the content of each job post:
https://juansierra.github.io/scrapenstat/
Looks like it needs to be normalized by overall site activity or something.
Would be cool to combine that data with the one from https://github.com/joblisttoday/data
Very nice. It would be cool to make a "seasonally adjusted" value to even out the drops before the start of each calendar year.
interesting slowdown from 2018-2020.
how come we didnt feel it back then?
how come we didnt feel it back then?
Here's the code used to scrape HN API, kinda hacky: https://github.com/bfung/HNAnalytics
Here's the data and the a chart on [google sheets](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18kLWHkrEedpl1eXzAht_se8GEKd0G9zrlz7SutP2uLQ/edit#gid=846434603)
A few things stick out: Dec and Jan are low job post months, as it makes sense due to holidays and fiscal cycles, and it shows in the # of posts.
Hope this helps would be job hunters in preparing for the next few months.