America has become an entrepreneur's paradise | Hacker News Reader

America has become an entrepreneur's paradise

economist.com

48 pointsbookofjoe53 comments

https://archive.ph/M3J07

>Full-time self-employment rose to its highest level this century in 2025, reaching 16.8m, according to the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, a trade group.

A common refrain is that all the "entrepreneurs" are just gig economy workers, and I was initially skeptical of this too, but it does seem to check out. The top industries with aren't related to gig economy or truckers, in fact that industry shrunk.

https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20260801_EPC...

same way republicans champion small business owners and theyre just talking about contractors and nonW2 workers who are often illegally forced into tax advoidance schemes as a contractor requires reasonable independance. uber drivers are a good example.

There's a very thin line between "full-time self-employment" and unemployment. As the article itself states, the count of new business applications correlates with economic downturns and rise in unemployment. If no one is hiring you it's easy to write "entrepreneur" or "AI startup founder" or "influencer" on your LinkedIn. Doubly so when you don't even need to go to city hall to register your business, just press a few buttons online and you'll have an entity in any state you want.

Conspicuously missing from the article among all the other numbers – how many of these businesses earn enough money to pay the owner's rent?

Seems like Instagram (and TikTok) are a big part of the story here. A lot of these 'buy my hat with a funny slogan' or 'buy my lotion' stores on Shopify, Etsy etc are highly dependent on direct-response ads / performance marketing so their fates are tied to these social media platforms

Ie, a junk economy. None of this produces value, if anything it's parasitic.

Hmm, do video games fall into the same category?

Perhaps by some measure, but what I'm referring to is how everything is becoming a fly by night scam-adjacent "product" that isn't much better than Alibaba drop shipping.

I think you underestimate the value that "filtering by a trusted source" provides.

What are the "trusted sources" that are better than Amazon (which is itself no better than Aliexpress)? Or Walmart, or target, or Newegg, which, ditto?

I buy straight from brands I trust whenever possible, not even trusting Amazon as an intermediary between us. Those brands aren't selling alibaba-dropshipper stuff.

I'd say my trust in stores that sell more than their own brand is at an all-time low. You have enshittifying mid-range department stores where you can't trust a thing, fake "outlet" stores, et c. I sort-of trust REI. I sort-of trust Costco. End of list, maybe?

Like if there's value being delivered in the "trusted source" sphere for a general retailer, I'm not seeing much of it. Quite the opposite, that's all gotten worse steadily this century.

Trusted sources = influencers

For example, when I'm buying a synthesizer I watch lots of Youtube reviews.

I know the influencers are paid or given goods but if you watch a person over while you get to understand their biases.

if someone buys it, is that not producing value?

Surely you’d agree that cigarettes are parasitic, no?

no - the cigarettes are providing some value to the smoker in terms of relaxation.

parasitic would be a one-way setup where only the cigarette provider benefits

This is a good thing. If the economy was driven by essentials, it would mean we were in a VERY VERY bad place.

Luckily, our economy is mostly based on luxury items, by world standards.

I certainly don't believe everything should be based on essentials, but when very little growth is from honest to god innovation which produces more or better of something, and isn't valued based solely on its anticipated future returns, or isn't based on innovation which only extracts more from the consumer while providing the same or less in return, I'm a little pessimistic. One day somebody who does innovate will eat your lunch. When too much of your economy is based on services or luxury goods, you're sitting on a house of cards.

> One day somebody who does innovate will eat your lunch.

That's why free markets drive innovation, and the usual motivation for innovation. Innovation is expensive, so it's tricky to do without return.

Luxury for luxury's sake only covers the opposite extreme of essentials. Innovation often involves non-essentials, considered luxuries early on, and sometimes becoming so ubiquitous that they become new essentials, for better or worse. Cars, AC, phones, computers, internet, smartphones...

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with producing entertainment, internet communities, or branded merch. But I don't think it's that controversial to say "micro-influencer selling/sponsoring merch" is not the optimal career path for most of the people that pursue it.

> Luxury for luxury's sake

At least in my circles, the Instagram gadgets are one part junk, one part failed execution and half genuinely-clever niche objects and services. A silly kitchen tool I low-key love is a domestially-made all-steel tofu press. A friend found it on Instagram.

The "luxury items" economy is junk made for $3 in a chinese factory and drop shipped to someone who paid $55 after clicking on an AI-generated Instagram ad.

Everyone is housed and well-fed, so we're using planetary energy resources to create dopamine hits for beer money

Not everyone is housed and well fed. Homelessness in the US is at a 20 year high. Same for Australia.

Eh.

There are certainly things wrong with today's economy, starting with housing being treated as a financial asset, which encourages laws that create an artificial scarcity of it. I'm not saying there is nothing to complain about.

But the fact that not everyone is working purely to create necessities, that some of our economic output consists of luxuries? I don't really see that as a problem to be solved. If anything, I think it's a good sign. Let's not fall into the trap of just randomly complaining about everything.

In a simple way, money = value. If someone is "paying", there is demand.

Is this what Adam Smith had in mind? Say I pay Facebook $10000 to generate demand for $12000 worth of funny slogan tshirts sales, is that overall an efficient use of our resources?

Does "value" have to be "efficient"?

I am not in the habit of judging other people's values. If it makes someone happy, why not?

Of course: capitalism. So slippery slope and all that.

How does any of this article have anything to do with America specifically?

Getting off the ground with a small business in America stinks in a lot of ways. Taxes are high and health insurance is really expensive when you have to cover it yourself.

"health insurance is really expensive when you have to cover it yourself."

Not necessarily, often it is much less.

t. I am a partner in an L&H insurance agency.

On the contrary, if you don't expect to need a doctor you can get really cheap coverage, just with a really high deductible. I only pay $100/month for $1 million in coverage, but my deductible is $20k so I pay out of pocket for all health expenses, but am covered during a major emergency (over $1 million I have bigger problems to worry about than paying off medical debt..)

Normal health insurance like employer provided (or universal healthcare) is the healthy paying for the sick, which while altruistic is what's actually expensive.

What you have is not considered health insurance so much as disaster insurance.

Similarly, what is considered health insurance is not really insurance but a convoluted way to pay for healthcare. I think there's a place for what you're calling disaster insurance but to me sounds truly like insurance for health-related issues (i.e. risk-pooling high cost low probability events). The conflation with what we've got now with that is one of the key reasons our health care system is so out of control, in my opinion.

I bootstrapped two companies in my 20s. While living off savings to get going, $20k in medical would have been the end of that venture. I'm glad it's working out for you. I don't have hard data, but I suspect being so healthy you don't need a doctor favors younger adults without dependents. And being able to afford up to $20k without losing your business implies a certain amount of wealth before getting started. That matches the profile of most tech founders I know -- certainly all of the ones that bootstrap. I only managed to make it work because for the first one I was on my parents' health insurance and for the second I had COBRA and a funded HSA.

If we want to encourage people to start new businesses, some form of universal healthcare would be a massive catalyst. Starting a business is never going to be risk-free, but there's a big difference between risking your retirement or even your house and risking the health of your child.

I'm a little confused if you are in the US. That does not seem to align with ACA insurance policy standards (the max is too high). Even the under 30 catastrophic plan.

For example, if you are in your 40s the cheapest (bronze level $10k deductible) plan is around $500-$900 a month. Are you maybe talking about a family plan (which allows for about $20k deductible)? But that would be significantly more than $100/month.

Sorry, do not mean to come off as combative, just trying to understand what I am misunderstanding.

Edit: to clarify, federal regulations do not allow an individual to have a plan with a $20k deductible that I am aware of.

That’s correct, and while I understand why regulations like that maybe should be exist, there are exemptions you can go through to make informed decisions about what is best for you and your particular situation.

The last 3-4 years have had tax obstacles that have motivated funded models over bootstrapped businesses:

1) the jobs act introduced a toxic R&D code from 2022-2025

2) tariffs with no reasonable means of manufacturing domestically and inhibited developing production lines with the prior tax code fiasco

I'm intrigued how often the most mundane products and things are in fact multi million dollar industries. Would be fascinating to see in 40-50 years how AI affected that trend and pattern, the "ceiling" if you will of entrepreneurial ventures.

> I'm intrigued how often the most mundane products and things are in fact multi million dollar industries.

Absolutely. https://www.wsj.com/business/making-money-wealth-boring-8cc6...

A million dollars really isn't so much these days

One can't start a real world business without substantial capital to get it off the ground. The absence of this capital is still what's holding back at least nine out of every ten entrepreneurial ideas. Often the requirement starts at a million dollars, and scaling the business requires 10x. As for VCs and banks, they won't fund anything too experimental.

I’m not sure having lots of people do something necessarily means it’s therefore a “paradise” for them. I view it as more of a necessity because many companies have degraded the jobs and the pay they offer. Why break your back for someone else and still never be able to afford a house?

https://archive.vn/edCMx

Surprised to see this many comments and noone actually linking to the article.

Wrong. For that, we’d need universal healthcare.

Isn't it strange. We don't, and yet they all still flock here.

Yeah, it's great if you have money already, or are willing to roll the dice on your family's health. Or have another country to go back to if anyone in your family gets really, really sick.

A place being better by some metrics doesn't mean it's better by all. It depends on which parameters matter most to you. Imagine the overall desperation someone must feel when even a lack of health coverage won't stop them from flocking here.

And by "they all" you're referring to the majority of whom come from third world countries? Sure, you're a step up from that.

How much has section 199A encouraged this?

I like that this article has no byline

The economist never does because all their "reporters" are kids fresh out of the LSE.

One of the benefits is it forces detractors to criticize the content instead of resorting to fallacious ad hominem attacks about the author's background and education.

I spot checked a few people in their media directory and this is most certainly false. Maybe around a third of people have bios that could imply they're "kids fresh out of the LSE" (even ignoring the LSE part).

What's surprising is how many people (seemingly) work there (hundreds!), for a publication that puts out like 70 articles per week? They got 9 people working on china and the china section only has 3-4 articles per week.

It's an economist policy. They almost never use bylines.

Welcome to the Economist

Reply on news.ycombinator.com