Steel production in the United States keeps one name in mind, Andrew Carnegie, the Master of Steel. Carnegie was a self-made business man who went on to become one of the wealthiest men in the nineteenth century. Carnegie possessed something he called his “gospel of wealth.” The methods by which Carnegie gained his wealth is widely criticized. Carnegie also had multiple sneaky business plans as well. The author relates the failure of Carnegie to the failure of America as well. Due to a small percent of the population controlling most of the money it caused many problems not only socially but also economically. The Master of Steel, Andrew Carnegie, was a genius during his time but had many unfortunate repercussions as a result of his actions. …show more content…
He gave away ninety percent of his wealth. “How very little the millionaire has beyond the peasant, and how often his additions tend not to happiness but to misery” (page 5). Carnegie said this after a trip to India, which is where he saw first hand the happiness of the people there even though they did not have anything. Carnegie described himself well by stating that one can only be happy based the way they live their life not by what is in it. Sometimes the happiest people in the world are the poorest and the saddest people are the wealthiest. Carnegie shared his wealth with numerous people and therefore most likely made their lives better. Carnegie also valued intelligence more than money. Carnegie saw “Vanderbilt walking on Fifth Avenue, Carnegie he smugly remarked, ‘I would not exchange his millions for my knowledge of Shakespeare’” (page …show more content…
While people with large amounts of money lived lavish lifestyles, the people who had little money lived paycheck to paycheck. If the employees, see the boss living a very lavish lifestyle while they are struggling. This is most likely of the primary reasons of the Homestead strike in 1892. Consequences that were social included strikes, fights, disagreements, and people losing their jobs. People wanted to be wealthier and therefore went to great lengths to get more money. Crimes such as robbery, murder, assault were common and easy ways to receive money. Economic consequences could be felt worldwide. Numerous times when the United States of America was bailed out of debt by wealth Americans, some of them did this multiple times. A person can greatly affect the economic status of a country, area, or region by simply doing one thing. Creating more product. In order to create more product, most of the time more jobs are needed and therefore it will boost the economy. The social consequences could be looked upon as more social disagreements and more crime and economic consequences could be perceived as an influx of money to the market if invested
Andrew Carnegie, the monopolist of the steel industry, was one of the worst of the Robber Barons. Like the others, he was full of contradictions and tried to bring peace to the world, but only caused conflicts and took away the jobs of many factory workers. Carnegie Steel, his company, was a main supplier of steel to the railroad industry. Working together, Carnegie and Vanderbilt had created an industrial machine so powerful, that nothing stood in its path. This is much similar to how Microsoft has monopolized the computer software
Despite the negative encounters of Andrew Carnegie’s Steel Company, the exploration and exchange of Carnegie Steel is that the steel was cheap. This had a positive impact on the United States because steel fed national growth, steel meant more jobs, national prestige, and a higher quality of life for
Andrew Carnegie in September 1875 production cost was pretty high but his selling price was way higher, in January 1877 he lowered his production cost by a lot and the selling price went down as well but it was still fairly higher than what he was making the steel for,and in November 1977 Carnegie was able to lower his production costs even more as well as his selling price which was a bit more than what he spent making the steel. (Doc D). The main idea of this chart is to show that over the period of September to November Carnegie was able to drop his prices and costs significantly but that doesn't make him heroic. That just means he found new methods, material, or cut the cost of labor, this is just Carnegie being a good businessman. Steel production in the United States was very small compared the Great Britain in 1870, ten years later in 1880 the US’s production launched and was just right under Great Britain, another ten years later in 1890 the US finally passed GB in production but but by very much, ten years after that in 1900 Andrew Carnegie’s mills was making one-third of all the steel in the US making the steel production to skyrocket still in the lead at #1 with Germany and Luxembourg no where near and then in 3rd was Great Britain a little bit close to GL (Doc E). This chart is just to show the production of steel in the United States comparing with other countries over the span of 1870-1900 and to see how Carnegie’s mills effected the US production. This chart does not show Carnegie as a hero just how well his factory productions was going. Overall Andrew Carnegie was very good at being a businessman because he had a lot of financial success with lowering his production costs but that's not very heroic of him, it’s really only doing him good because he's saving
Andrew Carnegie, was a strong-minded man who believed in equal distribution and different forms to manage wealth. One of the methods he suggested was to tax revenues to help out the public. He believed in successors enriching society by paying taxes and death taxes. Carnegie’s view did not surprise me because it was the only form people could not unequally distribute their wealth amongst the public, and the mediocre American economy. Therefore, taxations would lead to many more advances in the American economy and for public purposes.
Industrial development of the late 18th century (around 1865-1900) is often characterized by it’s affluent, aggressive and monopolistic industrial leaders of the likes of men such as Andrew Carnegie, William H. Vanderbilt, and John D. Rockefeller. Due to their ruthless strategies, utilization of trusts, and exploitation of cheap labor in order to garner nearly unbreakable monopolies and massive sums of wealth, these men are often labelled as “robber barons”. At the same time, they are also often referred to as “industrial statements” for their organization, and catalyst of, industrial development; not to forget their generous contributions to the betterment of American society. Therefore, whether or not their aforementioned advances in industry were undertaken for their own personal benefits, one cannot ignore their positive effects on America. Thus, one can conclude that not only were the captains of industry both “robber barons” and “industrial statements”, but that that these two labels, in fact, go hand-in-hand.
Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.
To understand Carnegie before he became a wealthy man, he grew up poor working for $1.20 a week (Document LV). At the age of 50 years, he took a risk by investing in a package delivery company. His gamble paid off and he gained money to start his company, Carnegie’s Steel Company. Eventually, his company grew and caused
In Harold C. Livesay’s Andrew Carnegie and the rise of Big Business, Andrew Carnegie’s struggles and desires throughout his life are formed into different challenges of being the influential leader of the United States of America. The book also covers the belief of the American Dream in that people can climb up the ladder of society by hard work and the dream of becoming an influential citizen, just as Carnegie did.
In the documents titled, William Graham Sumner on Social Darwinism and Andrew Carnegie Explains the Gospel of Wealth, Sumner and Carnegie both analyze their perspective on the idea on “social darwinism.” To begin with, both documents argue differently about wealth, poverty and their consequences. Sumner is a supporter of social darwinism. In the aspects of wealth and poverty he believes that the wealthy are those with more capital and rewards from nature, while the poor are “those who have inherited disease and depraved appetites, or have been brought up in vice and ignorance, or have themselves yielded to vice, extravagance, idleness, and imprudence” (Sumner, 36). The consequences of Sumner’s views on wealth and poverty is that they both contribute to the idea of inequality and how it is not likely for the poor to be of equal status with the wealthy. Furthermore, Carnegie views wealth and poverty as a reciprocative relation. He does not necessarily state that the wealthy and poor are equal, but he believes that the wealthy are the ones who “should use their wisdom, experiences, and wealth as stewards for the poor” (textbook, 489). Ultimately, the consequences of
middle of paper ... ... as farmers became more conscious of prices rising to transport their goods, they were forced to find other means of transportation to distribute their goods. Even though these men attempted to build a stable foundation for America to grow on, their negative aspects dramatically outweighed the positive. Even though Andrew Carnegie donated his fortunes to charity, he only acquired the money through unjustifiable actions. As these industrialists continued to monopolize companies through illegal actions, plutocracy- government controlled by the wealthy, took control of the Constitution.
Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-American steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest men of the nineteenth century, believes that social inequality results as an inexorable byproduct of progress. In his 1889 article entitled “Wealth,” Carnegie claims that it is “essential” for the advancement of the human race that social divisions between the rich and poor exist, which separate those “highest and best in literature and the arts” who embody the “refinements of civilization” from those who do not (105). According to Carnegie, this “great irregularity” is favored over the “universal squalor” that would ensue if class distinctions ceased to exist (105). Carnegie states that it is a “waste of time to criticize the inevitable,” believing that poverty is an inherent characteristic of society rather than the result of elitist oppression (105). Carnegie may conclude that the rich do not necessarily owe the poor anything, but he also believes that wealthy philanthropists such as he should donate their vast accumulations to charity while they are still alive. In Carnegie’s mind, contributions to supporting educational institutions and constructing landmarks serves to
Carnegie did not believe in spending his money on frivolous things, instead he gave most of his fortune back to special projects that helped the public, such as libraries, schools and recreation. Carnegie believes that industries have helped both the rich and the poor. He supports Social Darwinism. The talented and smart businessmen rose to the top. He acknowledges the large gap between the rich and the poor and offers a solution. In Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie, he states, “the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves” (25). He believes the rich should not spend money foolishly or pass it down to their sons, but they should put it back into society. They should provide supervised opportunities for the poor to improve themselves. The rich man should know “the best means of benefiting the community is to place within its reach the ladders upon which the aspiring can rise- free libraries, parks, and means of recreation, by which men are helped in body and mind” (Carnegie p. 28). Also, Carnegie does not agree they should turn to Communism to redistribute wealth. Individuals should have the right to their earnings. Corporations should be allowed to act as it please with little to no government
A penny saved may be a penny earned, just as a penny spent may begin to better the world. Andrew Carnegie, a man known for his wealth, certainly knew the value of a dollar. His successful business ventures in the railroad industry, steel business, and in communications earned him his multimillion-dollar fortune. Much the opposite of greedy, Carnegie made sure he had what he needed to live a comfortable life, and put what remained of his fortune toward assistance for the general public and the betterment of their communities. He stressed the idea that generosity is superior to arrogance. Carnegie believes that for the wealthy to be generous to their community, rather than live an ostentatious lifestyle proves that they are truly rich in wealth and in heart. He also emphasized that money is most powerful in the hands of the earner, and not anyone else. In his retirement, Carnegie not only spent a great deal of time enriching his life by giving back; but also often wrote about business, money, and his stance on the importance of world peace. His essay “Wealth” presents what he believes are three common ways in which the wealthy typically distribute their money throughout their life and after death. Throughout his essay “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie appeals to logos as he defines “rich” as having a great deal of wealth not only in materialistic terms, but also in leading an active philanthropic lifestyle. He solidifies this definition in his appeals to ethos and pathos with an emphasis on the rewards of philanthropy to the mind and body.
In the “Gospel of wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues that it is the duty of the wealthy entrepreneur who has amassed a great fortune during their lifetime, to give back to those less fortunate. Greed and selfishness may force some readers to see these arguments as preposterous; however, greed is a key ingredient in successful competition. It forces competitors to perform at a higher level than their peers in hopes of obtaining more money and individual wealth. A capitalist society that allows this wealth to accumulate in the hands of the few might be beneficial to the human race because it could promote competition between companies; it might ensure health care for everyone no matter their social standing, and parks and recreation could be built for the enjoyment of society.
The industrial revolution began in Europe in the 18th century. The revolution prompted significant changes, such as technological improvements in global trade, which led to a sustained increase in development between the 18th and 19th century. These improvements included mastering the art of harnessing energy from abundant carbon-based natural resources such as coal. The revolution was economically motivated and gave rise to innovations in the manufacturing industry that permanently transformed human life. It altered perceptions of productivity and understandings of mass production which allowed specialization and provided industries with economies of scale. The iron industry in particular became a major source of economic growth for the United States during this period, providing much needed employment, which allowed an abundant population of white people as well as minorities to contribute and benefit from the flourishing economy. Steel production boomed in the U.S. in the mid 1900s. The U.S. became a global economic giant due to the size of its steel industry, taking advantage of earlier innovations such as the steam engine and the locomotive railroad. The U.S. was responsible for 65 percent of steel production worldwide by the end of the 2nd World War (Reutter 1). In Sparrows Point: Making Steel: the Rise and Ruin of American Industrial Might, Mark Reutter reports that “Four out of every five manufacturing items contained steel and 40 percent of all wage earners owed their livelihood directly or indirectly to the industry.” This steel industry was the central employer during this era.