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.