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% (11,852 of 21,887 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 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 3.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 3.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.9%Steve Kraske: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Steve Kraske: 2.4%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias10.3%This article: 9.2%Steve Kraske: 6.0%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 8.1%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Steve Kraske: 2.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 15.7%Steve Kraske: 7.8%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 24.5%Steve Kraske: 3.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect24.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Steve Kraske: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.7%Steve Kraske: 4.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority30.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.3%Steve Kraske: 5.5%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization10.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.0%Steve Kraske: 7.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion10.0%This article: 7.7%Steve Kraske: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question7.7%This article: 24.5%Steve Kraske: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.6%Steve Kraske: 3.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.4%Steve Kraske: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.7%Steve Kraske: 1.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice15.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Kraske: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers50%attributed speech130writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageEwing Marion Kauffman Foundation • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Fairlie • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJoshua Akers • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Fairlie • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Fairlie • 9 words • 100.0% coverageRobert Fairlie • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRobert Fairlie • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJoshua Akers • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Robert Fairlie

94%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words54% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%Robert Fairlie: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+12.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Robert Fairlie: 12.7%12.7%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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