New Kauffman study finds entrepreneurship is bouncing back  but that's not all good news 46%

By Steve Kraske0% Gabriella Lacey0%

5/24/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 30.7% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 523 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.1% and a BS Rank of 46% (9,094 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.10% of the article peer group.

For many Americans, the pandemic reshaped not only where they work, but how they think about work altogether. 
Remote jobs, freelance gigs and side hustles opened the door for more people to consider starting businesses of their own. 
This week, the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, based in Kansas City, released a 30-year study examining early-stage entrepreneurship across the country. 
The research explores who is starting businesses, why startup survival remains difficult and how many entrepreneurs still face barriers like access to capital  especially women and historically underserved communities. 
Dr. 
Robert Fairlie and Dr. 
Joshua Akers joined KCUR's Up To Date to discuss what the data reveals about entrepreneurship, economic mobility and the changing nature of work in America. 
The report found startup activity has rebounded since the pandemic, with millions of Americans launching businesses in 2025. 
But researchers also found more people are starting businesses out of financial necessity rather than opportunity, raising larger questions about job stability and long-term economic security. 
Fairlie says the rise in entrepreneurship may reflect a broader shift in how Americans build careers and piece together income. 
"Maybe it’s not just one job anymore," Fairlie said. 
"People are piecing together income from multiple kinds of work… and entrepreneurship is becoming part of that mix." 
Dr. 
Robert Fairlie, developer and lead researcher of the Kauffman Indicators and Distinguished Professor of Public Policy and Economics at UCLA 
Dr. 
Joshua Akers, Director in Research, Learning, and Evaluation for the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
6.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
10.3%
Framing Effect
9.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
10%
Negativity Bias
15.7%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
24.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.9%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
30.7%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
10.3%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
10%
Begging the Question
7.7%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
24.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
14.6%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
3.4%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
15.7%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

261 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.