NYC Man Earns $55,000 A Year Peddling Candy On Subway
jobs.aol.com
jobs.aol.com
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.
A person from the hood# who sells candy bars to survive is not in that category.
#mentioned in the article.
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.
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.
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.
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."
How is this a respectable business model?
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.
I take it you've never ridden the subway.
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.
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.)
Sure, that's just "entrepreneurial spirit" - violating public or private space laws shouldn't matter at all...
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.
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.
Give the guy some credit.
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.
Does your tech startup break the law? If so, please call your local precinct and wait for the police to arrive.
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."
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.
You're comparing that with (usually) accidental infringement on complicated and virtually unknowable laws.
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
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 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 challenge you to supply three examples.
Groupon selling coupons for alcohol in Massachusetts: http://articles.boston.com/2011-03-18/business/29351154_1_gr... (here are some other suits: http://www.portfolio.com/business-news/2011/03/29/groupon-fa...)
Facebook not living up to privacy promises: http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111129-710865.html
YouTube/Google not paying royalties/failing to control copyright infringement: http://paidcontent.org/article/419-music-publishers-settle-w...
AirBNB's operations in New York: http://www.betabeat.com/2011/05/31/airbnb-takes-manhattan-wi...
Scam ads
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]
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.
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.
And in this particular case, why isn't it ok? He is clearly providing a service that the people are demanding.
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
Of course they're entrepreneurs; operating outside the law certainly, but entrepreneurs none the less.
"He didn't come up with a new and interesting way to sell shit."
He identified an untapped location/population, and acted on it. How is that not finding a new way to "sell shit"?
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 :)
Besides, doing something because other people find it interesting is a terrible way to make life choices.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Food trucks are licensed and subject to food quality regulations.
(http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplic...)
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?)...
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.
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.
Haters gonna hate. Love this guy and his positive attitude.
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.
Because selling M&Ms on the subway is akin to robbing houses.
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.
http://www.metrocandy.com/MM-PEANUT-FUN-SIZE-BAGS
23.6 pieces/pound * 6.3 pounds = 144.9 individual bags
55000/144.9 = 380 re-orders
380*25 = $9500 (cost of year supply of M&M's)
55000 - 9500 = $45,500 (total profit)
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 :)
Usually "takes home" indicates net income.
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.
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.
Well said.
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.
It cannot be both forbidden and enforced, can it?
OK, I'm being pedantic.
(http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=94999&page=1)
> *Seventh-grader Ansche Hedgepeth was handcuffed, booked and fingerprinted for eating French fries in a northwest Washington subway station.
12 years old?
"I do what I gotta do, just to stay on my feet. I'm flipping them sweets, I sell cavities, the s* will leave a hole in your teeth."
That makes more sense than the article's last line, "and s* believer, hole in your teeth."
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
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.
That's surprising. Maybe it works because the regular, tonal fare tends to be filtered away as background music?
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.
In the end he hustles, probably pays no taxes and is earning the equivalent of a single person making $85K/yr.
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 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.
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).
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.
How many of you (on HN) have done that? the answer can be surprising.
Before thinking about making millions $$$ on a startup maybe try to run a lemonade stand this weekend.
Non-Technical co-founder is a big +
I bet most of the people bitching on here would complain even more if this were a story about how he's collecting welfare.