Somehow, I feel like those being critical are posting from a SF coffeeshop, sipping a $5 latte, planning the next social-deals-crowd-sourced "startup".
The man is more of an entrepreneur than most of the people on this site, myself included. What makes it even more inspiring is that he didn't have a 150k offer from Google to fall back on.
Some of the comments here are really disappointing. Can't believe some people here are focusing on the fact that it's illegal to sell candy on the subway instead of this guys' hustle and trying to drag him down. Good to see the worlds current/future patent trolls and paper pushers have found HN in time to rip on someone making his own way.
I commend the entrepreneurial traits this man showed, but I don't see how you can simply dismiss the fact that he's profiting from a tragedy-of-the-commons situation. Just because there are some good things about his attitude doesn't mean he can't be criticized.
This story isn't really about the wealth-producing sort of entrepreneurialism that I come to HN for, so I'm not surprised there are negative comments on this post.
Obviously I thought it was called for. Some people are criticizing because it's "illegal" and therefor wrong. Someone below brought up how GrubWithUs illegally inserted flyers into daily papers and they were praised for being scrappy. Another mentioned the legal grey areas of startups like Uber or Airbnb.
And you're right this story is different than the norm on HN. I wanted to relate those criticizing to something they understand like patent trolls who try to rip others down or someone criticizing another for going for it while they sit behind a desk for 40 years implementing 1% of someone else's vision. My point was that maybe they should be rooting for the person that goes for it whether it's a SV startup or selling widgets on the street.
"rooting for the person that goes for it" is an example prime of a subjective statement. Do you not think that patent trolls perceive themselves as "going for it"?
You'd think hacker news members, wantreprenuers from all over the world, would applaud his effort... I was so upset over the many comments below. I typed up a rant. But went back and re-read everything just to try to see it from everyone's point of view.
I have some questions for you guys:
- If it were 2 little white girls selling cookies to save up to go to college I personally believe the comments below would have a completely different tone. But because it's a black guy named "Tracks" wearing $300 shoes selling candy the community looks down on it... Yes, I pulled the race card, it's the perfect time for it, and I'm a pasty ass white kid. I laugh at "nigga" jokes like everyone else but this is just the perfect example of subtle racism, something it took my black friends a long time to explain to me.
Just a few weeks ago, didn't hacker news have a link on the front page about how kids (white county kids) across the US are being handed hundred dollar fines for operating Lemonade stands without $400 food permits. Lemonade stands are also "illegal".
THIS is the problem with America, it's turning into Anti-Business Europe. Selling anything requires 12 pounds of permits and licenses. THIS is what is slowly killing the US, THIS is what Steve Jobs was talking about when he complained to the President that building factories in the USA is so much harder than in China.
"Selling on the subway is annoying."
- Excuse me but, what the fuck are you doing on the subway that is so god damn important that you can't be snapped out of your "state of zen" and hear someone ask "anyone want candy, candy for $2" for 5-10 seconds max. The loud ass subway, underground, with no view, screeching and bumping and vibrating along. And the black guy selling candy is what's bothering you?! Again... If it were 2 little white girls selling cookies you'd smile and wish there were more little entrepreneurs like them in the world.
If it were "annoying" people wouldn't be giving him 50 thousand dollars a year. They wouldn't be buying his candy.
"It's illegal:"
- Says who? Law and ethics are 2 different things. In the US it's illegal to download media for personal use, in Switzerland it's not. In the US the drinking age is 21, in other countries it's 16. Who is "right"? Who is "correct"? So many laws are made by rich men to benefit rich men that over the decades our middle class has shrunki, the richest country in the world is in debt, and our jobs are being lost overseas. The Rich are getting richer, the poor getting poorer. This is what happens when well established rich men use the "Law" to keep everyone else down while making themselves untouchable. Making everything "illegal". Selling candy on the subway is not allowed, selling lemonade in front of your house is not allowed. Where the fuck can I go to make a living? The jobs are all gone too.
HOLD ON, is the Subway not public grounds? Do we not pay taxes for public transportation, pay again to use it, and we still can't sell shit there?! So I can't sell lemonade in my own fucking front yard, I can't sell candy on my own fucking public land. Do you see where I'm going with this...
Not only that but city planning, government policies, and the fact that only 50 years ago blacks weren't allows to shit and piss in the same bathrooms as whites. All these policies together have created unequal societies, segregated cities, ghettos, and deprived groups of people of all color from a future. This is the equivalent of complaining about Native Americans setting up TeePees in Public Parks because it's illegal. There's a time to fuck the law and a time to follow it.
Time after time I see posts on hacker news about white men doing semi-illegal things and making big bucks out of it. This time a black dude did it and we all piss on him. Glad to see racism is alive and well, even in entrepreneurs. I hope you all come back in your next lives as Gay Black Jews living in a parallel universe where it's the 1800s.
Nope. I see this is a throwaway because you don't feel like taking a karma dip (at least you don't lose your internet points).
Your points boil down to this.
1. I'm upset because other people don't feel the same way as me
2. Closing down/fining illegal shops because they don't have the proper permits is killing America.
3. Selling in the subway is not annoying, for me
4. It's ok to ignore laws because some laws are minor and mostly ignored (i.e. jaywalking) and because other countries have different laws on the same subject.
5. If you don't agree with me you are a racist.
Oh and the whole reason we don't see it the same way as "two white girls selling things for college" is because the man is not trying to go to college. If it was "two black girls selling things for college" that would be comparable. He is exploiting his race in order for people buy his candy.
>"If you don't spend a dollar with me, either you don't have it or you're a hater," he's concluded."
But your point boils down to this:
- Follow the rules regardless of them being unfair or illogical.
- Everyone needs to be a good little rule follower just like me.
Who are you trying to impress?
- We've all illegally downloaded software to try it out.
- We've all hauled ass past the speed limit
- We've all jaywalked.
- We've all bought thousands of dollars of products online and NOT paid the sales tax on it like it is required by law.
- We've all taken money under the table at some point without keeping track of it to see if we have taken enough to qualify for paying taxes on it.
- We've all slowly driven past a stop sign instead of fully coming to a stop.
- We've all BROKEN rules. Because RULES are stupid. Literally, they don't look at one's specific situation or view point, rules are blanketed over everyone. Despite them being dumb as fuck like "speed limits". Study after study shows that when speed limits are removed, accidents go down. (State revenue from tickets does too).
Did you know that in many cities you have to pay $25 and fill out a form to get a permit to have a fucking Yard Sale. No body even knows, or follows it, but it's a law.
These ridiculous rules have created imbalances in our society. People/businesses who HAVE money can easily apply for permits and licenses and continue making MORE money. PEOPLE who NEED money can't afford these things.
"Well that's spam" some people say. And what the fuck is ADVERTISING (billboard, junk mail, posters)? State sponsored spam. So rich people can spam and make money but poor people can't?! Those with money can advertise on billboards on the side of highways that distract you from driving, they can advertise on TV commercials, they can advertise using Junk mail which cannot be stopped because there's no "do not mail" list. People with money are allowed to piss us all off. But when those who don't have money try to advertise using plastic signs on the side of public roads, that's "illegal" and they get taken down within 24 hours by the city. There's no place for people without money to get free advertising or a place for them to sell their products or services. Hell, we can't even start businesses in our own homes because of zoning laws.
And we're going to sit here and talk about rules... Fuck the rules.
Whether you see the "no selling in the subway" law as pointless or not depends entirely on your opinion on the matter. Not everyone thinks the same way.
HOLD ON, is the Subway not public grounds? Do we not pay taxes for public transportation, pay again to use it, and we still can't sell shit there?!
Yes, there is a public good that you aren't allowed in engage in a profit making enterprise to take advantage of. "Public ground" is not the same as open, predatorial grounds.
We pay taxes on the streets and "we" still can't setup toll booth with which to shake down motorists...
Selling candies illegally isn't as obvious obnoxious as other shakedown scams but the point is it not a "victimless crime" or a situation where someone is violating some private rent-seeking effort (IE, ignoring the "intellectual property" of a patent troll). It's violating boundaries that are there because most subway riders want them there.
> Can't believe some people here are focusing on the fact that it's illegal to sell candy on the subway
It matters. Like someone else pointed out, the fact that it's illegal minimizes his competition.
You could make a business making and selling child pornography, and for awhile, you'd be making a lot of money, too. ("But child pornography actually hurts people," you cry, "so it's a terrible analogy!" Shut up. The analogy isn't about the crime, it's about the lack of competition.)
I suggest that you consider how you'd feel if you were sitting in an SF coffee shop and this guy walked up and tried to sell candies to each customer there-in including you...
Sure, that's just "entrepreneurial spirit" - violating public or private space laws shouldn't matter at all...
I personally do encounter a lot of this kind of thing in SF, except usually just in latin shops/restaurants. And instead of candy, it's some nick-nacks (usually along the lines of childrens clothing, rosary beads, virgin mary pendants, etc), being sold by an elderly person.
I never really buy anything from them (though my mom sometimes does), and even though I do prefer my meals to be uninterrupted, I would never say they annoy me, or that they shouldn't be doing it. Life can be hard, and you can tell these people are genuinely trying to make the best of it, so I truly respect them for it. If anything, accusing them of 'violating' anything when they're working so hard, doing something so simple and innocent, would just make me feel like less of a human being.
Selling shit on the subway is illegal. The reason this man is capable of making a profit is because he has almost no competition. It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship, being a good salesman, having a good idea, or really anything positive other than the giving spirit of some New Yorkers. He's milking a system in which he exists illegally and if it were actually legal to sell shit on the subway, the subway would be significantly less tolerable and he wouldn't be able to come close to making a good living.
Why is it okay to break the rules in the tech world but if you do it in the NYC subway, it's cheating.
Entrepreneurship is all about breaking the rules, making your own way and making things happen.
The guy probably didn't have a lot set up for him in life, so instead of feeling sorry for himself, he put on his shoes, grabbed his box of candy and made it happen.
Just because he's exercising his entrepreneurial spirit by doing something that's not as sexy as programming the next facebook/twitter/social "disruption" doesn't mean his attitude shouldn't be applauded.
He isn't breaking convention, he's just breaking the law. That law exists for a good reason - because being stuck in a confined space with a bunch of salesmen is intolerable.
Does your tech startup break the law? If so, please call your local precinct and wait for the police to arrive.
How many startups are currently facing legal action?
Do you really want to know the answer to this question? Tons of startups are breaking the law either intentionally or purposely trying to disrupt it. I think we've established long ago that something being "legal" or "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean it's "right" or "wrong."
Tons of startups are breaking the law? I find that highly unlikely, mostly due to the fact I spend at least an hour a week talking to my attorneys about EVERYTHING we do and making sure it's all above board and legally covered.
While I can't speak for all the other startups out there, I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I can guarantee that you violate copyright law every day. Ever play music at work? Did you acquire the performance right/license for that? Ever fwd someone's email? Depending on content most email is copyright protected. Do you really think you haven't violated terms of service of any software/website you've used. I'd be surprised if you even have read them all.
Most those laws are enforced only against egregious offenders. Dude offering me a candy bar so I don't have to stop by corner store is not egregious.
I doubt that it's possible for you or your attorneys to understand every single law that applies to your situation, so you are almost certainly breaking some law or regulation somewhere. The difference between you and this guy is that he probably knows that he's breaking the law, but you don't.
I'd estimate that about 1/8 to 1/4 of the purpose of the laws he's breaking is to protect commuters from harassment and the remainder is to protect the profits of businesses like the kiosks that sell candy, drinks, and newspapers on some of the platforms. Basically, I find those laws to be more of a bug than a feature.
I disagree. Based upon other commenters' experience with this exact fellow, he often turns abusive to people who don't want to buy what he's offering.
When it comes to public transit, strict limitations are really nice for the masses. Riding trains in Japan, where nobody chats on their cellphone next to you, buskers don't assault your ears, and vendors are limited, efficient, and polite, is a wonderful thing.
And, Indiana also requires licensure for money transmission.
IC 28-8-4-20 (a) A person may not engage in the business of money transmission without a license required by this chapter.
Therefore, Paypal is illegal in Indiana. But the only reason why I think they haven't been 'busted' is because nobody has complained yet to the appropriate Indiana authorities.
edit: I've been heavily criticised by OstiaAntica for this comment for being "anti-hacker". But I'm simply stating facts, and an opinion as why I think why. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3088836
More likely, Indiana doesn't have any legal jurisdiction over Paypal. Just because something is a law in one place doesn't mean it's a law in another place, even if you have customers that are covered by the law.
> I can say without a doubt that mine hasn't broken any laws.
I hope that's merely your own misinformed conclusion and not what your attorneys actually told you. Because if they did guarantee this, you should probably look into getting new ones.
Assuming you're in the US, your congress already invented* laws it's illegal to know whether they affect you or whether you are guilty of them.
Of course those are coming for terrorists, so you don't need to speak out/worry because you're not a terrorist.
So while it's very likely that your company might not be breaking any laws, if your attorneys guarantee it, they're either lying/ignorant or breaking the law themselves.
OK so how's this relevant to the guy selling candy? The point is, it doesn't matter whether it's legal for him to sell these candies, the big deal is whether it's right for him to do so.
These attorneys you're hiring, are not for guiding you on the Right Path of being a "good" company, you hired them to protect you from the Beast of the Law.
*blatantly copied the idea from Kafka, who had prior art, the thieving bastards
I don't know about "breaking the law intentionally" but here are some examples of things startups have done that other people have thought were illegal. In some of the cases people have thought that so strongly that they've filed lawsuits.
Somewhat bullshit legal action, though. All they need to do is move their company out of San Francisco and then the City can't do anything about it. Cars for people in California can arranged from anywhere in the world with phone lines and intarwebs, and I doubt the City of San Francisco has much jurisdiction over people in, say, Russia.
Almost all startups, small companies, and even large companies that I've worked at have had some level of software piracy in their organization. Of course, I could just be unlucky in where I've worked, but it's always been rationalized away in some capacity ("once we start making money, we'll buy legitimate licenses").
Through 2009 Zynga made money from lead generation advertising schemes, whereby game participants would earn game points by signing up for featured credit cards or video-rental services. These were criticized as being less cost-effective than simply buying game points, and in some cases, being outright scams that would download unwanted software or unwittingly sign up for a recurring subscription.[38] One ad signed up players for subscriptions to expensive and unwanted text-messaging services.[39]
On October 31, 2009, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch said that Zynga intentionally worked with scam advertisers, and that lead generation made up a third of Zynga's revenue.[64] Arrington also alleged that Facebook was complicit in this.[65] On November 2, 2009, CEO Mark Pincus announced a reform in its offers: Tatto Media, a major offer provider that enrolled users into recurring cell phone subscriptions, would be banned, all mobile offers would be removed, and offer providers would be required to pre-screen offers.[66]
Arrington continued to question Pincus' role in the scams, republishing a video of a speech by Pincus.[67] In the speech, Pincus said:
"So I funded [Zynga] myself but I did every horrible thing in the book to, just to get revenues right away. I mean we gave our users poker chips if they downloaded this Zwinky toolbar which was like, I don't know, I downloaded it once and couldn’t get rid of it. laughs We did anything possible just to just get revenues so that we could grow and be a real business." —Mark Pincus, Speech from Startup@Berkeley
In response, Pincus noted that after offering the Zwinky toolbar, his team of ten decided to remove it since it was a "painful experience".[68]
Several days after the Techcrunch story, Zynga's most recent Facebook game FishVille, was temporarily taken offline by Facebook on claim of advertising violations. According to Zynga, Fishville had 875,000 users within two days of launch. A release from Facebook on its reasons for taking the game offline read that "FishVille will remain suspended until Facebook is satisfied that Zynga demonstrates compliance with Facebook restrictions – as well as Zynga’s own restrictions – on the ads it offers users."[69] FishVille was later un-suspended at midnight November 9–10.[70]
Several suits were filed against Zynga for promoting such offers,[71][72] including the class-action lawsuit Swift v. Zynga in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for violation of the Unfair competition law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, after the lead plaintiff's credit card was billed more than $200 for offers she completed to receive YoVille currency.[73][74][75]
Pincus later said that he had been too eager to increase company revenues through advertising, and that operating in reactive mode by taking down ads only after receiving complaints had not worked. The company removed all ads for a time, relying only on direct purchase of game currency, then began reintroducing third party ads only after they had been screened.[38]
You are debating against rocks. The reason I say this is because once people decide some one is wrong. They are wrong for life. Nothing you write here will convince people that this peddler is right in doing what he is doing.
Being right is not always synonymous with legal.
Society is so unfair, when some uses unfair means to game the system and make lots money, he is termed 'intelligent'. Because big money is glamorous. Here we are a guy at the subway making same kind of average money your average developer might make, now suddenly hell breaks loose. 'How dare he?', I mean the reactions are basically 'How dare this guy? without any college education without learning and reading? make the same average amount of money as I do?' So obviously they end up with 'All this is illegal so it doesn't matter'.
Go check your life, you will find you are doing N number of things every day which might not be complying 100% with the law. Yet you can do it without harming any one.
The problem here and reason with many problem here is clear. No body likes the idea that a poor un educated guy is making the same money as they are. Doing less intellectual work. And yet here they are, after all those high aspirations and that intellectual work still the same as a subway peddler. So what really is the difference between them and a candy peddler in the subway.
Its this thing that is really giving all the invisible pain. Not the illegality of the selling candy in the subway.
If only the number were not $50,000 and way lesser than that, you would see a totally different thread.
Some time back people here were angry with a VC for a making a comment on the 'Google Chef' who got rich in an IPO. The same situation here.
Subway candy peddler is to these hackers what the 'Google Chef' was to a VC.
If your startup develops, sells or uses software, it is undoubtedly breaching someone's patents. Cardinal Richelieu needed six lines to hang a man; A good patent troll will hang a company in five lines of code.
>Entrepreneurship is all about breaking the rules, making your own way and making things happen.
Braking the rules is ok, braking the laws is not. So if I understand, you would consider the people, that are in the drug business, as entrepreneurs? Illegal activities are highly profitable, precisely because most people, will not participate in them, and this distorts the market.
Have you been on the subway when a peddler, beggar, dance troupe comes through with a loud spiel?
It's more like the subway version of spam.
Clearly lots of people are demanding spam, right?
He's providing a service that a few people* are demanding, and most people find annoying.
Plus evading sales tax, creating litter, reducing rent from the legit concessionnaire, etc. If that's OK, why stop there, why shouldn't I set up a candy stand in the movie theater?
*the ones who take up one seat for each butt-cheek
I've lived in New York, and it's just a fact of life on the subway, kind of like the way that it stinks on hot summer days. I'd rather that the police and the court system spend their resources on real crimes because I can always ignore these guys and the panhandlers while I read my book in peace.
And that is why it's tolerated to a certain threshold. Thankfully (for us and him) we're still below the threshold. But if more people start selling candy on the subway you can bet you'd be happy they did something about it. And this dude would be making significantly less money.
Having commuted on the subway at one point in my life, yes. That has happened to me hundreds of times. Usually I ignored them, other times I wanted some candy and purchased it.
well, as Emerson said, good men must not obey laws too well (probably talking about slavery). In this case, I think there are valid reasons for the law. Just because something is a fact of life doesn't mean it's desirable.
Agree with that. I was living there a while ago and they are more than annoying. The statement if you don't spend a dollar with me you either don't have it or are a hater already demonstrates his mindset - i.e. that people are obliged to buy his crap and that he takes it personal if they don't.
Nop, the subway version of spam is someone selling you Viagra even if you are a 10 year old girl; someone selling you fake lottery tickets and a guy from Nigeria that needs your credit card information in order to give you 10 millions bucks.
Just because the market is distorted doesn't mean they aren't entrepreneurs. We all know some laws are written/influenced by industry to protect industry. Maybe your parents told you never to break the law but, laws are written by men. They are fallible and sometimes people need to push the limits or break laws to make things change.
so much downvote hate these days. Quoted from the article itself: "He started selling candy in order to get out of the "hood," he says." Growing in the hood, with that kind of entrepreneurial spirit, I give him mad moral props for resorting to selling candy on the subway instead of drugs on the street.
For any of you entrepreneurial types out there, I challenge you to read 50 Cent's book "From Pieces to Weight", and tell me that if you were born in the hood, and had the same aspiring drive, you wouldn't resort to selling drugs.
I don't think it's bad to break the rules in either case. He's just not an entrepreneur, and this article proposes nothing truly interesting. He's selling shit on the subway. He didn't come up with a new and interesting way to sell shit. He's just selling shit. Panhandling. The only reason he can make a profit is because it's illegal and people are nice. He's taking advantage of both. Is it better than selling crack? Without the slightest doubt. But thats a terrible metric with which to judge your surroundings.
"Entrepreneur - a person who organizes and manages any enterprise, especially a business, usually with considerable initiative and risk"
He is the very definition of an entrepreneur. Most of the stuff you see selling in the streets of NYC is not "legal" because of not having the proper permits or any number of bureaucratic issues but you damn sure are not going to tell me these people are not entrepreneurs.
a person who organizes and manages any enterprise (He is not managing or organizing anything.)
especially a business (It is a business)
usually with considerable initiative and risk" (He went to the store, bought some candy, sold it. No risk, limited initiative, certainly not considerable imitative.)
The world would be a better place without a guy selling candy on a subway.
I disagree with this criticism. The very act of going to the store and buying candy in the hopes that it will bring in more cash is risk. He's risking money that he could otherwise spend on a new television, a 401(k), or M&Ms for the kids. That he planned a route for selling and segmented the population and carries different products to meet demand is the core of what managing an enterprise is.
This is to make no comment on whether what he is doing is good or even legal; but clearly there is 55k worth of demand for a service that he is providing so it is difficult for me to accept that the world would be a better place without this particular gentleman selling candy on a subway.
Enterprise - 1. "A project or undertaking, typically one that is difficult or requires effort."
2. "Initiative and resourcefulness."
He at least fits one of the requirements for the word enterprise.
As someone said previously in this thread, most of the people on this site have no idea what it means to actually "sell" something. Anytime you put your own money on the line to gain a profit you are taking a risk.
"Limited initiative"? Do you have any idea what it takes to go out in public and get rejected 90% of the time to make that one sale? His initiative is definitely not limited.
Do you know why Jason Fried's article http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110301/making-money-small-busi... in Inc was so on point? It was because selling is a skill and you really do have to practice to be good at it. I would say for most people its harder to learn how to sell than it is to learn how to become a programmer. Humans have more variables.
Why would the world be a better place without a guy selling candy on the subway? I can see where it could be a problem if the subway became overwhelmed with these guys but that's not the case. I ride the subway all of the time and you know what, I ignore these guys just like most New Yorkers do. Are the guys selling water bottles on the sidewalk during a hot day a nuisance as well?
The world would also be a better place without a lot of social-media crap startups with "sell more ads" business models using other people's money to bid up the price of talent and office space. Nonetheless, the people starting those companies are entrepreneurs and so is this guy. That's a lean startup, right there. ;)
People are buying aren't they? And I reject the suggestion that he is somehow pressuring people into buying, if you've ever been on a subway that is rather implausible.
Some people are deathly afraid of people talking to them in public, especially if they are from a different social class.
I've had people try to sell me candy on the L before. I said, "no thanks" and that was that. I imagine this is the end result of 99.99999% of interactions between people on public transportation. (Someone stole my shoes once after he asked to read my newspaper and I gave it to him. That's the 0.000001% case :)
You'd be amazed at the number of "uninteresting" entrepreneurs out there. Just because he's not in SV and his latest funding round wasn't featured in TechCrunch doesn't mean he's any less entrepreneur than any other business owner.
Besides, doing something because other people find it interesting is a terrible way to make life choices.
We're debating the relative importance of connotations of entrepreneurship; there's, say, a discrete (maybe multivariate) probability distribution of connotations, dictionary definitions are supposed to capture its peaks, and the debate is over where the "true" peaks are. I doubt most people would call the subway vendor a Steve Jobsian entrepreneur. But if he hired others to sell for him, took out loans to increase his inventory, and attached Sodoku puzzles and small pencils to his candy to give bored passengers something to do, more people would likely agree he can be called an entrepreneur. Nevertheless, I believe a high bar for innovation is not an essential component of entrepreneurship -- and the more interesting entrepreneurs are not necessarily more innovative. So the subway vendor's living between the cracks, he's breaking the law. Maybe that makes him more interesting! What types of people tend to strike up conversations with him? How often do policemen confront him? Which foods are more popular after a Yankees game? Interesting entrepreneurs may be engaged in very ordinary activities that afford them unique perspectives.
Incidentally, I love the NY subway for all its various distractions -- the breakdancers, the flashmobbers, and yes, even the panhandlers, because it's always interesting to observe how passengers react to them.
have you ever sold anything? you have to almost beg them, one on one. you have to be bold and walk down an aisle of people who give you the evil eye, and still make your pitch. before you take some high horse and put this man down, walk in his shoes.
On the contrary, the nyc subways are filled with these dudes "Selling candy for a basketball team" or "Trying to make some money to stay out of trouble." (Actual quotes)
The competition may be slim, but there are at least a hundred people selling candy on the subway everyday.
And if it were actually legal, there would be more; many more. If it gets past a certain tolerance you can bet Bloomberg will fire up the ticket machine.
Don't knock the hustle. I remember hearing about how GrubWithUs started by inserting flyers inside the free morning daily newsletters in subways (illegally) - people applauded at how "scrappy" this great startup was. Setting up lemonade stands is also illegal unless you have a permit, but nobody complains. I guess sometimes the law just isn't in your favor, and you have to actually think for yourself whether something is right or wrong.
Ah! Perfect example then. Shouldn't have generalized.
I hate to pull this card, but you also have to really wonder if people would be "annoyed" as much if it were cute little suburban girl scouts selling the candy instead of a dude named "Tracks" (why is there not a comment about how ridiculously awesome/apt this name is?)...
I can't seem to find any information on the GrubWithUs flyers. Could you post a link? Lemonade stands don't stand to gain immense competition because of relaxing regulation.
No link. They talked about it at the NYC YC event. They also talked about bootstrapping by working out of a Starbucks and getting free refills for the entire day. Pretty cool stuff.
Let me ask you a quick question - what do you think about food trucks? In NYC, most of them park illegally and pay the fine as a cost of doing business. I'm sure this guy has gotten fined before, but maybe it's just a cost of doing business as well.
Are you saying that if it wasn't recorded then we cannot discuss it? Obviously there are many people who have been to the event, and s/he would be a fool to make such a statement if it weren't true, specially on HN.
How can I possibly comment on it if I can't get any factual information? Are you saying witches don't exist? We've all seen them and you look like one.
You're scratching the surface of a much deeper issue. Yes, a lot of people would be annoyed if they were bombarded with train salesmen. On the other hand, the fact that this man and others like him are able to bring in this kind of money shows that there's demand for their products. So if the laws were actually being effectively enforced, the market would go underserved.
It seems that we're only having this discussion becuase the transit system is government-owned. Private trains, airlines, etc. have all tried to serve this market in an unobtrusive way.
People buying from an insistent salesmen they can't walk away from is not necessarily a sign of demand. I'm sure there is some demand, but I strongly doubt it accounts for 100% of his business.
"The reason this man is capable of making a profit is because he has almost no competition. It has nothing to do with entrepreneurship, being a good salesman, having a good idea, or really anything positive other than the giving spirit of some New Yorkers."
So he's found a niche market and exploiting it. Good for him. And it's not a good idea because it was just so obvious right? Or, because some guy in a suit says it's wrong? If someone cracks down on him fine. Till then he isn't hurting anyone. You should be rooting for this guy instead of against him. That even if he gets shut down at least he had the guts to put himself out there like that and hope he finds something else if this drys up.
"While it might frustrate some to learn that the man who hectors subway riders to buy a granola bar is making more money than many of those commuters, there is something impressive about Tracks' entrepreneurship."
Haters gonna hate. Love this guy and his positive attitude.
The annoying thing is not how much money he makes but how much he annoys people. IMO, it's basically the same thing as short changing people and pocketing that money. A few cents or a few seconds of time is not going to make or break someone but it's still a net drain. Just because your not robbing houses or kidnapping people does not mean it's ok.
I see these guys every day on the subway. They have absolutely no impact on my life whatsoever, except the one time I chose to buy a bag of M+M's. I'm not sure how you ended up talking about robbing houses and kidnapping people.
ha - seriously..I really don't understand this at all. Why is it ok to go door to door peddling a start-up that will fail 90% of the time, but not ok to sell a candy that will satisfy 100% of the time :)
Why is it when the discussion is about somebody selling candy on the subway certain peoples minds seem to be turning to violent crime, but when you hear about people with unlicensed lemon-aid stands we don't seem to see this?
To put it bluntly, I suspect it has something to do with the demographic people associate both of these (rather identical) businesses.
If you were blunt you would say that people are suggesting that his alternative occupations would have been burglary or drug dealing because he's black, and they are fools. And you would have been right.
I agree, but not in the sense you mean it. The demographic for lemonade stands is little kids, while the demographic most closely associated with trying to earn money in the subway is desperate adults. One of these demographics is drastically more likely to commit violent crime if they can't make money another way.
In any major city, one is bombarded with intrusive marketing (commercials, neon signs, think of Times Square). On the NYC subways there are plenty of obnoxious people, many asking for outright handouts. Tracks is a small time entrepreneur - he embodies the successful aspects of a start-up: great elevator pitch, asks for your money, and shows up to do it again the next day. I wish him much success.
55K revenue? What were his actual profits? Does he pay taxes? Respect to the guy for making a living and taking care of his family, but the piece makes him out to be making a killing when I suspect the reality isn't that inspiring.
This obviously assumes 100% sell through and that he just stocks those lower margin items for people that will not buy the M&M's. You could probably knock a few grand off the 45K number and get pretty close. The trouble is, that is not that much money in NYC. Thus, he may still be living in the hood, but at least he is controlling his own destiny :)
I don't think it makes any indication of whether he's making a "killing" or not. The only thing that can indicate that is the $300 kicks, which are more likely to be his personal indulgence than reflective of everything.
The amount of money he makes isn't what's inspiring. What's inspiring is the fact that he had two choices - wait for something good to happen to him and blame others or take responsibility for things and make them happen by himself. Thats what's inspiring.
"While it might frustrate some to learn that the man who hectors subway riders to buy a granola bar is making more money than many of those commuters"
In my opinion, the article is implying this guy is making pretty good money but they've left out all the important details. As I said, I respect the guy for making a living and it's nice to put some numbers to what these guys earn (I've always wondered), I just take issue with what I see as a bit of embellishment and misrepresentation on this particular success story.
Presumably the bank tellers are W-2 and their employer pays payroll taxes, while this guy is paying his own payroll taxes. If you've ever done 1099 work, you'll know that the government takes pretty much all of your 1099 money.
I think this is the epitome of entrepreneurship --> "I've been doing this since I was 11. Not because I had to do it, but because I chose to do it...because there's nothing better than your own money."
Is this legal on the NYC subway? On the DC metro, eating is forbidden and enforced. I remember a story from years back about a little girl being led away in handcuffs for eating a few french fries. Hopefully this story won't get him into too much trouble.
And hopefully it won't spawn too many copycats either. The last thing this guy (not too mention the other riders) need is for the number of people peddling sugar to multiply.
On the other hand, the NYC system is not particularly dirty. I'm not from NYC and so haven't ridden the subway a lot, but I've never seen a single seat unusable because of filth. That shiny plastic stays pretty clean.
I think the DC subway system is cleaner than the NYC subway system, but I don't think it has anything to do with the food policies. For one, I have never seen food refuse in the NYC subway. I think the biggest difference is scale and number of riders: the DC metro has about 700,000 riders on a weekday, while the NYC subway has about 5.1 million. (From Wikipedia.)
Hate to say it but it sort of aggravated me that at the end of the video he says "This what y'all buyin me, $300 sneakers. I stay fly from head to toe."
When I think about it, it shouldn't, he's just a businessman making money and spending it as he wants, but for some reason it was irksome... maybe because some people buy over pity and it isn't quite legal what he's doing
Maybe you don't value $300 sneakers and see it as wasteful? I do. But, I'm sure this guy would shake his head at someone buying a $2,000 laptop (or something like that) when there is one for $1,000 that is "just as good."
I don't know. Those shoes look awfully comfortable and make him look clean. Perhaps they are a very valid business expense and well worth the money: Perhaps he did A/B tests with different shoe styles and manufactures? Perhaps the shoes are a topic of conversation during the sale that he can switch to and then back to close a deal? Perhaps if his feet don't hurt after 11h and he's able to hustle that one more hour, the shoes pay for themselves.
Funny, I know what A/B testing is, but I had to read this twice. I thought you were referring to the A & B trains which converge with the D train track between 59th and 145th.
My brother says that playing in a high traffic place like that is usually less successful than on the platforms, because nobody has to stop. He often plays on the platforms that have trains coming opposite directions on either side, giving him a captive audience for a few minutes at a time.
he plays in NYC, mostly improv, often incorporating Bach and other classical works, but always without sheet music. Lately his focus has shifted to more atonal music, which contrary to what I would've thought has dramatically increased the rate at which people give him money.
With the rest of his free time he plays in a million different bands (most of whom who he met when they approached him on the subway platform) and smokes himself into a happy stupor.
> Lately his focus has shifted to more atonal music, which contrary to what I would've thought has dramatically increased the rate at which people give him money.
That's surprising. Maybe it works because the regular, tonal fare tends to be filtered away as background music?
Interesting theory. Not all atonal music sounds 'harsh' by the way. Berg's opera music is quite jolly in some parts.
Suggestion to relative: get a digital sound recorder and capture a few of the improvisations and a couple of the atonal pieces and put them on Soundcloud. Your relative might get (even) more attention.
To be fair, it's only 3 or 4 people in the thread who appear to be of the authoritarian "do what the government says and get off my lawn" mindset. It just shows how easy it is for a vocal minority to dominate a discussion.
I really hope this article doesn't create a gold rush where the subway will become inundated with people trying to make a quick buck...almost like Silicon Valley :)
Yes, it all depends what part of the city you want to live in. There are many good areas in all the boroughs outside Manhattan. In Manhattan he could split a two bedroom for about $1500/mo each, though I doubt he would want to considering how much he could save by living further away from the yuppies.
In the end he hustles, probably pays no taxes and is earning the equivalent of a single person making $85K/yr.
Ooh, very true. Plus, this entire thread seems rather emotionally split between support and derision. I wonder if he claims benefits of low income while pocketing his earnings from the sales.
While this story could serve as advertising and up his revenue, it might also be a bit of a curse for him if the IRS wants to cause some extra hassle.
I used to sing on the subway with a friend - we made about $200 between us for singing until our voices started to fail (6 hours). This lasted the summer between high school and college. We could have made 36,000 yearly without tax each if we were desperate.
Anyone who rides the subway likely knows that it's against transit rules to make loud noise. You don't need to look it up. These rules are there for good reasons. Bold people can sometimes get away with making money by breaking law but we don't hav to support them just because they a successful.
I don't live in New York, but in my city any loud or disruptive noise is against the rules and can be fined. I think this is a good policy consider the purpose of the subway. However I do wish there were more public places where people could freely be loud and obnoxious. But the subway is not an ideal forum for this.
I don't have any problem with the guy personally, I think he is ethically justified, considering his poverty background. However I don't think this is a tactic that should be emulated by well-educated entrepreneurs. Breaking important social rules to make profit is rarely beneficial on the whole.
Could you point to where it is explicitly stated that this is so, remembering that this is performing music for profit.
Is this covering the US copyright position too?
In the UK, if they're performing on the street they'd need a street performance license (local authority) and a music license to cover the copyright of the writers (from PRS). You might need a second license if you were imitating a particular performance (from PPL).
From your link "not performing in subway cars" is given explicitly as one of the Government regulations that accords with the First Amendment.
This appears to contradict the spirit of your comment if not the letter. The GP stating that singing wasn't allowed "on the subway" and you replying that it explicitly was allowed "in the subway". I can see how you can both be right and individually agree with your link too though so the above is really just for clarity.
This guy is selling through pure hustle. I find it hard to criticize him when he's working his ass off, every day, to earn a buck for his family. He's not mugging anyone. He's not stealing. He's not, in fact, doing any harm at all.
I bet most of the people bitching on here would complain even more if this were a story about how he's collecting welfare.
The man is more of an entrepreneur than most of the people on this site, myself included. What makes it even more inspiring is that he didn't have a 150k offer from Google to fall back on.