The article argues that the surge in “founder” and “creator” identities is less a cultural shift than a labor supply response to a deteriorating outside option. With hiring stuck well below pre-pandemic levels and job search feedback collapsing, the expected value of traditional job hunting has fallen. Workers who can exit do so, not because self-employment is superior, but because the probability of receiving a viable offer has declined.

It links LinkedIn trends to Census data showing business applications far above pre-pandemic norms, then reframes the surge using “high-propensity” measures: much of the growth looks like low-payroll, freelance, or gig registration rather than classic startup dynamism. This “Haltiwanger inversion” suggests business formation now partly captures labor market blockage. The article concludes that necessity-driven self-employment can reshape B2B demand and may not lift productivity, even if AI tools lower barriers for genuine entrepreneurs.

The article argues that recent layoffs at profitable firms are being misread as AI-driven job replacement. The real drivers are post-pandemic demand normalization after the 2020–2022 hiring boom and the repricing of capital once rates jumped, which made boards and investors demand visible efficiency. Layoffs became a signal of discipline and margin protection, often paired with AI and data-center commitments.

AI matters mostly as framing and capital-allocation justification. Productivity gains are hard to measure, but headcount cuts show up immediately in revenue-per-employee, so executives cite AI to explain why labor costs must fall now. The cuts also reshuffle power by trimming recruiters, coordinators and middle managers while protecting core engineers and AI specialists, producing leaner, centralized firms. The article concludes this is rebalancing, not collapse, and urges leaders to base decisions on regime shifts and measurable signals, not headlines.

If you have been reading this blog for a bit now, you know we have been skeptical of the “AI Bubble.” Our skepticism, or at least my own, has mostly centered around the economic implementation lagging the hype. We spent the better part of 2025 watching companies buy massive amounts of GPU compute to build smarter chatbots, yet aggregate productivity statistics barely budged. (Yes, we have some data now that shows the effects of AI on productivity but not nearly as much as you would think).

While the market was distracted by the “Brain” trade (LLMs, data centers, and NVIDIA chips), you may have missed the momentum building in the “Body” trade.

Most large companies have formal policies, enterprise licenses, internal copilots, or approved tool stacks. In many sectors, AI is already embedded in day-to-day work. If adoption alone were the constraint, we should already see it in the productivity data.

And yet, the aggregate numbers remain underwhelming.

This tension is often framed as disappointment or hype fatigue. I think it is better understood as a timing and measurement problem. In this post, we will suggest a different, slightly more uncomfortable explanation to the fears of an AI bubble.

Last week, I attended a gathering of economists and data scientists from major tech companies, all focused on how technology is reshaping business and work. Practitioners swapped insights on everything from labor market trends to AI experiments. The AI revolution promises to upend how we work and this is happening against the current backdrop of the “pause economy” with hiring and investment in a cautious lull. The discussions ranged from the cooling tech job market to cutting-edge methods in causal inference and AI measurement, and deeper questions about whether AI is a substitute for human work or a “bicycle for the mind.”

Last week, I spent several days in Philadelphia for the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Business Economics (NABE). The event brings together economists from central banks, think tanks, corporations, and universities to assess the state of the global economy. The theme this year was Global Economy in Transition: Finding Opportunity Amid Disruption. Sessions explored the pressures shaping global business and policy: geopolitical instability, shifting trade regimes, monetary divergence, and the disruptive force of technology. There were also discussions of long-term structural issues such as climate risk, labor markets, and the balance of economic power.