12 comments

  • gruez1 hour ago
    &gt;Full-time self-employment rose to its highest level this century in 2025, reaching 16.8m, according to the Small Business &amp; Entrepreneurship Council, a trade group.<p>A common refrain is that all the &quot;entrepreneurs&quot; 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&#x27;t related to gig economy or truckers, in fact that industry <i>shrunk</i>.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;content-assets&#x2F;images&#x2F;20260801_EPC596.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.economist.com&#x2F;content-assets&#x2F;images&#x2F;20260801_EPC...</a>
    • cyanydeez11 minutes ago
      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.
  • firasd1 hour ago
    Seems like Instagram (and TikTok) are a big part of the story here. A lot of these &#x27;buy my hat with a funny slogan&#x27; or &#x27;buy my lotion&#x27; stores on Shopify, Etsy etc are highly dependent on direct-response ads &#x2F; performance marketing so their fates are tied to these social media platforms
    • sigilsack55 minutes ago
      I seem to recall it being pretty common for MLM dupes to describe themselves as “self employed” and “entrepreneurs” or what not. Some years back.
      • paxys5 minutes ago
        Drop shipping is the new MLM.
    • helterskelter59 minutes ago
      Ie, a junk economy. None of this produces value, if anything it&#x27;s parasitic.
      • nomel52 minutes ago
        This is a good thing. If the economy was driven by essentials, it would mean we were in a VERY VERY bad place.<p>Luckily, our economy is mostly based on luxury items, by world standards.
        • paxys1 minute ago
          The &quot;luxury items&quot; 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.
        • computably23 minutes ago
          Luxury for luxury&#x27;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...<p>There&#x27;s nothing intrinsically wrong with producing entertainment, internet communities, or branded merch. But I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s that controversial to say &quot;micro-influencer selling&#x2F;sponsoring merch&quot; is not the optimal career path for most of the people that pursue it.
          • JumpCrisscross17 minutes ago
            &gt; <i>Luxury for luxury&#x27;s sake</i><p>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.
        • helterskelter33 minutes ago
          I certainly don&#x27;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&#x27;t valued based solely on its anticipated future returns, or isn&#x27;t based on innovation which only extracts more from the consumer while providing the same or less in return, I&#x27;m a little pessimistic. One day somebody who <i>does</i> innovate will eat your lunch. When too much of your economy is based on services or luxury goods, you&#x27;re sitting on a house of cards.
      • slashdave25 minutes ago
        In a simple way, money = value. If someone is &quot;paying&quot;, there is demand.
        • bad_haircut7219 minutes ago
          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?
      • rwallace36 minutes ago
        Eh.<p>There are certainly things wrong with today&#x27;s economy, starting with housing being treated as a financial asset, which encourages laws that create an artificial scarcity of it. I&#x27;m not saying there is nothing to complain about.<p>But the fact that not everyone is working purely to create necessities, that some of our economic output consists of luxuries? I don&#x27;t really see that as a problem to be solved. If anything, I think it&#x27;s a good sign. Let&#x27;s not fall into the trap of just randomly complaining about everything.
      • melonmars55 minutes ago
        if someone buys it, is that not producing value?
        • jimbob4547 minutes ago
          Surely you’d agree that cigarettes are parasitic, no?
          • 8note28 minutes ago
            no - the cigarettes are providing some value to the smoker in terms of relaxation.<p>parasitic would be a one-way setup where only the cigarette provider benefits
      • iambenm58 minutes ago
        Hmm, do video games fall into the same category?
        • helterskelter43 minutes ago
          Perhaps by some measure, but what I&#x27;m referring to is how everything is becoming a fly by night scam-adjacent &quot;product&quot; that isn&#x27;t much better than Alibaba drop shipping.
          • nl33 minutes ago
            I think you underestimate the value that &quot;filtering by a trusted source&quot; provides.
            • readread25 minutes ago
              What are the &quot;trusted sources&quot; that are better than Amazon (which is itself no better than Aliexpress)? Or Walmart, or target, or Newegg, which, ditto?<p>I buy straight from brands I trust whenever possible, not even trusting Amazon as an intermediary between us. Those brands aren&#x27;t selling alibaba-dropshipper stuff.<p>I&#x27;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&#x27;t trust a thing, fake &quot;outlet&quot; stores, et c. I sort-of trust REI. I sort-of trust Costco. End of list, maybe?<p>Like if there&#x27;s value being delivered in the &quot;trusted source&quot; sphere for a general retailer, I&#x27;m not seeing much of it. Quite the opposite, that&#x27;s all gotten worse steadily this century.
      • HoldOnAMinute49 minutes ago
        Everyone is housed and well-fed, so we&#x27;re using planetary energy resources to create dopamine hits for beer money
        • denkmoon38 minutes ago
          Not everyone is housed and well fed. Homelessness in the US is at a 20 year high. Same for Australia.
  • paxys8 minutes ago
    There&#x27;s a very thin line between &quot;full-time self-employment&quot; 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&#x27;s easy to write &quot;entrepreneur&quot; or &quot;AI startup founder&quot; or &quot;influencer&quot; on your LinkedIn. Conspicuously missing from the article among all the other numbers – how many of these businesses earn enough money to pay the owner&#x27;s rent?
  • tripleee34 minutes ago
    How does any of this article have anything to do with America specifically?<p>Getting off the ground with a small business in America stinks in a lot of ways. Taxes are high and health insurance is <i>really</i> expensive when you have to cover it yourself.
    • repeekad23 minutes ago
      On the contrary, if you don&#x27;t expect to need a doctor you can get really cheap coverage, just with a really high deductible. I only pay $100&#x2F;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..)<p>Normal health insurance like employer provided (or universal healthcare) is the healthy paying for the sick, which while altruistic is what&#x27;s actually expensive.
      • lazyasciiart15 minutes ago
        What you have is not considered health insurance so much as disaster insurance.
    • ecommerceguy24 minutes ago
      &quot;health insurance is really expensive when you have to cover it yourself.&quot;<p>Not necessarily, often it is much less.<p>t. I am a partner in an L&amp;H insurance agency.
  • spr-alex32 minutes ago
    The last 3-4 years have had tax obstacles that have motivated funded models over bootstrapped businesses:<p>1) the jobs act introduced a toxic R&amp;D code from 2022-2025<p>2) tariffs with no reasonable means of manufacturing domestically and inhibited developing production lines with the prior tax code fiasco
  • dabinat28 minutes ago
    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?
  • bookofjoe1 hour ago
    <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;M3J07" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;M3J07</a>
  • tolugenius55 minutes ago
    I&#x27;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 &quot;ceiling&quot; if you will of entrepreneurial ventures.
    • julienchastang42 minutes ago
      &gt; I&#x27;m intrigued how often the most mundane products and things are in fact multi million dollar industries.<p>Absolutely. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;making-money-wealth-boring-8cc6c2cd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.wsj.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;making-money-wealth-boring-8cc6...</a>
    • slashdave23 minutes ago
      A million dollars really isn&#x27;t so much these days
  • xxpor43 minutes ago
    How much has section 199A encouraged this?
  • readread50 minutes ago
    Wrong. For that, we’d need universal healthcare.
    • honeycrispy46 minutes ago
      Isn&#x27;t it strange. We don&#x27;t, and yet they all still flock here.
      • tripleee6 minutes ago
        And by &quot;they all&quot; you&#x27;re referring to the majority of whom come from third world countries? Sure, you&#x27;re a step up from that.
      • readread39 minutes ago
        Yeah, it&#x27;s great if you have money already, or are willing to roll the dice on your family&#x27;s health. Or have another country to go back to if anyone in your family gets really, really sick.
      • smnrg29 minutes ago
        A place being better by some metrics doesn&#x27;t mean it&#x27;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&#x27;t stop them from flocking here.
  • jrflowers1 hour ago
    I like that this article has no byline
    • jordanb56 minutes ago
      The economist never does because all their &quot;reporters&quot; are kids fresh out of the LSE.
      • gruez26 minutes ago
        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&#x27;re &quot;kids fresh out of the LSE&quot; (even ignoring the LSE part).<p>What&#x27;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.
      • dghlsakjg53 minutes ago
        One of the benefits is it forces detractors to criticize the content instead of resorting to fallacious ad hominem attacks about the author&#x27;s background and education.
    • dghlsakjg55 minutes ago
      It&#x27;s an economist policy. They almost never use bylines.
    • Ginger-Pickles55 minutes ago
      Welcome to the Economist