This is a dangerous game. Some HR managers and hiring managers won't have the time or the know-how to fact check that sort of thing. Others will. The expected value of the dice roll isn't worth the risk.

I'm not saying to do it, but the EV is almost certainly positive if the prospects for long-term unemployed are significantly negative. Suppose you get "caught" the first time? Just do it again, and you'll likely find a job sooner than if you played it straight.

Dangerous how? The only down-side appears to be that you don't get that job. TFA is suggesting that with an employment gap instead of a fake job, you wouldn't have, anyway.

Dangerous because HR people and recruiters tend to switch companies and even industries constantly, and because any given company is obligated to keep your resume on file for a certain number of years -- inclusive of any remarks made by HR or the hiring manager about it. If you want to risk being essentially blacklisted for lying on your resume, I guess your risk tolerance is higher than mine.

I get the argument about the risk's being mitigated over time by the downside of being unemployed for 6+n months. Mathematically, sure, this starts making sense after awhile. But it seems much less risky just to invent (or hey, attempt to start) a fictitious company than to lie about having been employed by a real one, defunct or otherwise.