Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by raganwald 5110 days ago
Some things are not be for sale. I own a replica of Jackie Robinson’s Kansas City Monarchs Negro League Jersey. I wear it to baseball games (where else?)

I once was offered $100, cash for the jersey at a Blue Jays game. I said “no.” The offer was raised to $200. Again, no. I explained it wasn’t for sale. The fellow offering me the money explained that “everything was for sale.”

I find such people manipulative. They have money, so they try to twist the rest of the world to play by their rules. I told him that it would take me four hours to earn $200, so it was worth four hours to me, right? He agreed.

I told him he could have the jersey if he worked for me for four hours. End of conversation right there.

http://raganwald.posterous.com/this-jersey-is-not-for-sale

This may or may not apply to your dream startup.

3 comments

Some people are stupid :-) He would have learned much working for you for four hours, and he would have a rare collectible jersey!

But I disagree with this "I find such people manipulative. They have money, so they try to twist the rest of the world to play by their rules."

Sometimes it is as you say, a sense of entitlement, however sometimes it was an opportunity they didn't have.

Let me share two anecdotes to illustrate, first we have old VAX parts. You know that architecture that Digital Equipment made around the turn of the century. During the big Y2K scare a lot of perfectly good VAX computers were dumped for scrap, I bought too many of those. But in putting together working examples for my collection I would have extra parts. Sometimes I'd sell those parts. I asked a guy who was buying a part from me for more money than I had paid for the entire system why he didn't do what I do and just pick up scrapped machines? His response was surprising. He related that he spent his time shipping stuff around the country, he made good money doing it. He used VAXes running his custom software to make that work. He spent his time doing what he was good at, and then using the extra money he made to occasionally go out and buy a VAX part. The money was fungible he could translate it into VAX hardware easily. If he subtracted off the money he would lose by spending his time buying up old machines and testing them instead of shipping stuff, and added back the money he saved by getting parts this way, he still came out behind just shipping stuff . So while I might think he was 'paying a lot' for a part, he was, in fact, saving money!

A more personal story, early in my marriage my wife and I would occasionally get into arguments about chores. (I'm sure this was unique to my marriage :-)) She wanted me to do a variety of chores, and I wanted to hire someone to do those same chores. My reasoning was that at the time I had a number of people who were willing to pay me $75/hr for consulting on various technical projects. This was work that I enjoyed doing. Further there were lots of people who would do any number of household type chores for $10 an hour. So I could spend the weekend doing a consulting project, make $750, and then hire someone to come out three times a week, four hours a day, and do chores for the whole month!

In neither case, my VAX parts buyer, or myself, was trying to 'twist the world to play by their rules' rather, there are rule equivalences that are arbitrated by their monetary value. My 10 hrs of consulting was 'equal' to a month of housework, but it is absolutely true that I wasn't following the 'rule' of 'husband does housework too.' [1]

The life lesson I took away is that, like the concept of 'enterprise' value, strict monetary exchanges don't include the emotional cost as well. The emotional cost can and does change the sales price significantly at times. It can be useful to know when someone is so emotionally invested that the total cost is outside the market. As with raganwald's shirt, the replicas can be bought elsewhere for much less than the total cost. When the startup founder's emotional investment prices the startup outside of market norms it can be leading indicator of trouble.

[1] For future and current husbands out there I do not recommend you try reasoning to this by explaining you could spend your time building a robot and then it would do the housework. Rather than impress your spouse with your robotic skillz they get rather insulted that you think their work can be replaced by a robot!

Let me share two anecdotes to illustrate, first we have old VAX parts. You know that architecture that Digital Equipment made around the turn of the century. During the big Y2K scare a lot of perfectly good VAX computers were dumped for scrap, I bought too many of those. But in putting together working examples for my collection I would have extra parts. Sometimes I'd sell those parts. I asked a guy who was buying a part from me for more money than I had paid for the entire system why he didn't do what I do and just pick up scrapped machines? His response was surprising. He related that he spent his time shipping stuff around the country, he made good money doing it. He used VAXes running his custom software to make that work. He spent his time doing what he was good at, and then using the extra money he made to occasionally go out and buy a VAX part. The money was fungible he could translate it into VAX hardware easily. If he subtracted off the money he would lose by spending his time buying up old machines and testing them instead of shipping stuff, and added back the money he saved by getting parts this way, he still came out behind just shipping stuff . So while I might think he was 'paying a lot' for a part, he was, in fact, saving money!

I think my guy understood very well that it was easier for him to trade stocks or buy and sell companies or whatever it was he did to make money than work for a fellow who was selling Macintosh computers. And he probably did enjoy his work. I agree with his reasoning, I was annoyed by being told that everything is for sale as if I have no free will in the matter :-)

You definitely have a free will -- you are free to define asking price.

:-)

In case anybody's curious, the general principle behind those anecdotes is called comparative advantage. Definitely one of the more entertaining bits of economics!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

What if someone offered you a million dollars for the jersey? Perhaps a billion dollars? Everything is for sale.
That isn’t a sale in any reasonable definition of the word, it’s akin to asking, “What if the Death Star was in orbit around the Earth and Darth Vader asked me to sell or witness the destruction of Earth?"

“For Sale” in an unreasonable, extreme circumstance is not on a smooth continuum with $200. You can’t say, Well, if $1,000,000, what about $100,000? What about $10,000? What about $1,000? What about $100? What about $10? What about $1?

Somewhere between $1,000,000 and $1 is a discontiguous gulf that demonstrates the two are entirely different kinds of transactions. If you want to use “For Sale” to indicate everything from Darth Vader to $1,000,000 to $100, you need a new set of words to differentiate $100 from $1,000,000 if we’re going to be able to have any kind of interesting conversation about marketplaces.

"We've already established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price" -- anecdote punch-line attributed to various people over the years

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/03/07/haggling/

Amusing anecdote, but faulty reasoning. I’ll tell the story another way: Would you betray your country if I kidnapped you and your family, rendered you to a secret location in the third world, and tortured your children? You would? Here’s $100, betray your country. We’ve already established that you’re a traitor, we’re simply haggling over terms.

That is clearly ridiculous, the word “traitor” clearly means something a little more than “There exists at least one set of circumstances—no matter how extreme--under which this person would betray their country.”

The expression “This jersey is for sale” means something a little more than “There exists at least one circumstance—no matter how extreme—under which I would sell the jersey.” If it doesn’t, we might as well throw it out of the English language, because it would convey zero bits of information.

When we say “Everything is for sale,” we don’t mean “Because I can kidnap your family or drive an armoured car full of cash to your house,” unless we’re members of the Hutt clan. In the OP, the CEO is discussing how the company being for sale affects everything they do. He doesn’t mean, “We do what we do because someone may kidnap my children,” he means “We do what we do because I’m open to negotiating the sale of this company at any time."

There is a difference between putting someone under duress and making an offer they can't refuse.

If your wedding ring is not “for sale” for any amount of money, I might still be able to coerce you into “selling” it by putting a gun against your (or your spouse's!) head. But then it wasn't “for sale” in any real sense, because you didn't freely agree to the sale. The same applies to your hostage situation.

However, if you sell your wedding ring for $1,000,000 cash, take it or leave it, then you were willing to sell it, and thus, in my opinion, it was for sale.

Of course there is some grey area (what if you need money to cure a terrible disease?) but that doesn't change the principle: if you'd freely sell something precious for a lot of money, it was for sale. Being offered large amount of money is not, in itself, an extenuating circumstance.

I agree with you BTW
You are bang on with this. Well said.
What's so special about a baseball jersey? Sell it for $200 and buy another for $20.