Throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s a Scottish American industrialist known as Andrew Carnegie dominated the steel industry making him one of the richest men in the history of the United States. While Carnegie was known as somewhat of a dictator in his industry he was also known for his extensive work in philanthropy and social equality. Most famously, Carnegie wrote The Gospel of Wealth, which details his views on the widening class division in the US. In The Gospel of Wealth, Carnegie states that while the conditions of the rich and the poor are becoming increasingly polar this is not necessarily a bad thing. Carnegie argues that the separation of the high and low class provides for the progression of the human race as the rich can …show more content…
use their surplus wealth to benefit society as a whole if done correctly. Personally, I agree with the beliefs of Carnegie as he illustrates a realistic and practical method of utilizing the inevitable difference in wealth among people for the benefit of everyone. One of the first points that Carnegie makes clear in the beginning of his Gospel of Wealth is that over the centuries of human existence, the high and low classes have been becoming further and further separated from each other.
Carnegie cites an example in which he visits a Sioux village and notices that the wigwam of the chief was not noticeably different from that of the braves. In the modernized cities of the US, Carnegie admits that employers are so far above their workers in condition that they are almost nothing more than legends to the common man. While Carnegie doesn't definitely state whether he believes this is a good or bad thing he does argue that it improves the condition of both the workers and the employers. The way products used to be made with masters and apprentices kept the employer and employees closer in status but made for expensive and lower quality products. Carnegie argues that with the mass workforces of lower class citizens, the conditions of both the upper class and lower class are raised. Due to large scale commercial production of products Carnegie says that "The poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford" and that "The laborer has now more comforts than the landlord had a few generations ago." By this Carnegie is saying that due to the larger class difference, competition expedites the progression of technology and improves the accessible comforts for both ends of the …show more content…
spectrum. The next problem that naturally arises from this economic system that has been developed is that the majority of the wealth is funneled to a very small minority of super rich aristocrats who have the ability to hoard huge amounts of money. Carnegie insists that it would ludicrous to attempt to turn back on this system as it has become ingrained in society and still can be used for good. The main issue with a small percentage of the population holding large amounts of wealth is that the money is often kept within the family so that it is not used beneficially for everyone. Carnegie is quick to present solutions to this problem however. When a person dies usually their remaining fortune would go to their family and a small percentage to taxes. While some millionaires families do good with their inherited wealth, they are "as valuable as, unfortunately, they are rare". All too often the inheritance is slowly wasted away and not used productively at all. Because of this, Carnegie is a proponent of larger estate taxes, which take a percentage of a persons wealth at the time of their death. As Carnegie says this would show a states "Condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life," and thus encourage millionaires to spend their money before they die. At the time that Carnegie wrote this the idea of estate taxes was growing more and more poplar showing a change in the fundamental thinking of the public. I completely agree with Carnegie on the topic of estate taxes because I fell that it is the only effective way to encourage the super wealthy to use their fortunes for the good of society. In the last part of the Gospel of Wealth Carnegie outlines the best way for the super rich to give their money back in order to effectively reconcile the huge difference between upper and lower class.
The method of donating money that Carnegie argues to be most effective is to create public facilities and institutions such as parks or libraries. It would seem logical to simply redistribute the wealth evenly among the people but Carnegie states that "Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent" meaning money is often wasted when it is donated directly to the people. To put it simply, Carnegie does not trust the average "slothful, drunken, and unworthy" American to spend surplus money wisely. To correctly donate money it must be to people who want to help themselves and use the money to do something truly productive. By using excess wealth to build public facilities the super rich are helping everyone who wants to use said facilities to better themselves as well as improving general public image. Carnegies main goal through all of this is to make the wealthy trustees of the poor who help to improve their condition in the best ways possible. I support what Carnegie is saying on this point because today we see similar thing happening. There are many Americans who abuse the welfare system and never actually use the money effectively. While this is different from charity is goes to the same point that simply giving money
to people doesn't always work out. I agree with the idea that donated money from the wealthy is best spent on public facilities that anyone can use because it helps all of those who really want to be helped and doesn't waste time on those who don't. During the industrialization the United States saw the rise of the super rich who often controlled entire industries such as oil and steel. As these wealthy and powerful figures separated themselves further and further away from the low class, men like Andrew Carnegie used his great success to help others and bridge the gap between the rich and poor. In Carnegie's famous "Gospel of Wealth," he lays out his belief that while the separation of rich and poor is inevitable, it can have benefits when handled correctly. If the super rich are able to successfully donate their money back into society instead of stockpiling it for themselves, the difference in condition between the high and low class can be reconciled. I whole heartedly agree with Carnegie because I believe that in America, if you are able to become a millionaire, nobody should be able to take that away from you, but it also comes responsibility of giving back to the people who helped you get there.
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.
At this time, Vanderbilt had emerged as a top leader in the railroad industry during the 19th century and eventually became the richest man in America. Vanderbilt is making it abundantly clear to Americans that his only objective is to acquire as much wealth as possible even if it is at the expense of every day citizens. Another man who echoed such sentiments is Andrew Carnegie. In an excerpt from the North American Review, Carnegie takes Vanderbilt’s ideas even further and advocates for the concentration of business and wealth into the hands of a few (Document 3). Carnegie suggests that such a separation between the rich and the poor “insures survival of the fittest in every department” and encourages competition, thus, benefiting society as a whole. Carnegie, a steel tycoon and one of the wealthiest businessmen to date, continuously voiced his approval of an ideology known as Social Darwinism which essentially models the “survival of the fittest” sentiment expressed by Carnegie and others. In essence, he believed in widening inequalities in society for the sole purpose of placing power in the hands of only the most wealthy and most
On the other hand, Carnegie understands that there exists inequality, but he believes that the superior can cooperate with the inferior to gain equality. In fact, it the document he clarifies, “There remains…only one mode of using great fortunes…in this we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor−a reign of harmony” (Carnegie, 54). Carnegie does not particularly consider inequality a problem. He understands that in order for wealthy to facilitate the lives of the poor, there must be inequality to establish status, but he also discerns that by helping the poor they are given a chance to reach equality. In fact, Carnegie says, “Individualism will
Andrew Carnegie and his philanthropy made him a hero because he helped more people than harm in the long run, by this I mean he helped other countries. He also sets a great example to everyone that helping others or someone is not something you need to wait to do when you are no longer living. If someone needed help and even a stable person had the choice to help but until they are no longer alive has little meaning. Perhaps it would be too late when the person isn’t around anymore. Its about what someone can do to help when they are around, it is about what a person can do in the time of need even if it is not much but a little of anything can go a long way. In (Doc C) there is a list of amounts of money that Carnegie has donated to various places which in total he has donated well over $271m but aside from that his corporation is giving out about $100m a year, most of it to education (Doc C)
This idea of Social Darwinism gave the robber barons of society the justification for their hostile behavior towards their workers. Andrew Carnegie tried to make the gospel of wealth by arguing that the duty of someone with power and a lot of money was to put advancement into the society such as libraries. John D. Rockefeller also used this idea and gave away some of his wealth to education as well. However, many socialists, promoting fair distribution of wealth, tried to write books, which were very popular and best sellers at the time to address the social development issue of the economy. The factory workers had no opportunity to gain the independence and advancement of their social class.
Andrew Carnegie was a man who was born poor, but wanted to change many lives for those who were like him. Since he was able to walk, he started to work he was a bobbin boy in Pittsburg. Carnegie would work 12 hours a day to
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.
Carnegie’s essay contains explanations of three common methods by which wealth is distributed and his own opinions on the effects of each. After reading the entire essay, readers can see his overall appeals to logos; having wealth does not make anyone rich, but using that wealth for the greater good does. He does not force his opinions onto the reader, but is effectively convincing of why his beliefs make sense. Andrew Carnegie’s simple explanations intertwined with small, but powerful appeals to ethos and pathos become incorporated into his overall appeal to logos in his definition of what it means for one to truly be rich.
Document M gives us quotes from Andrew Carnegie’s, “Wealth” in the North American Review, June 1889. He states that he wanted more than just the wealthy to prosper: “The man who dies rich is a disgrace.” He was one of those men who would leave their wealth for public use on his deathbed. He never spent too much of his money because he wanted to “set an example of modest... living…; and… to consider all surplus revenues… as trust funds;” he’s a little bit of a hypocrite. Carnegie’s ideas are criticised for the mistakes along the way, but when his ideas came to be, they made big impacts all around the
Steel Company after a serious, bloody union strike.He saw himself as a hero of working people, yet he crushed their unions. The richest man in the world, he railed against privilege. A generous philanthropist, he slashed the wages of the workers who made him rich. By this time, Carnegie was an established, successful millionaire. He was a great philanthropist, donating over $350 million dollars to public causes, opening libraries, money for teachers, and funds to support peace.
In Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” he outlines what the rich man’s responsibilities to the public is regarding his wealth. Andrew Carnegie was one of his times wealthiest men and wrote this in 1889. He states that, “Our duty is with what is practicable now-with the next step possible in our day and generation. It is criminal to waste our energies in endeavoring to uproot, when all we can profitably accomplish is to bend the universal tree of humanity a little in the direction most favorable to the production of the good fruit under existing circumstances (Carnegie 23-24).” In his writing he talks about the best way to dispose of the wealth one has acquired. The remainder of this paper will address the
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
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.
...ve up the fortunes they have built themselves. It is an admirable idea to give your money to help promote a thriving community. Carnegie states that he is against charity and believes that those in need should be taught how to improve their own lives. To fund these institutes and corporations a form of charity must be given. Wealthy citizens give their excess money to a few to disperse of in a way they see fit to help the race. Most Americans are not willing to give up such a large sum of money as noble and respectable of an idea as it is. I think that Carnegie’s plan, in theory, would work and would be best for the race. I do not think it is practical because most would rather spoil their own family with inheritance than give it away to help people unknown to them. Carnegie’s idea of fair is equal opportunities for everyone to help themselves and the race.
Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers had very similar ideas during the Industrial Revolution. Both authors wrote articles directed towards the wealthy in hopes of making a difference by explaining how the rich mocked and refused to share money with the poor. Although Carnegie and Gompers’s writings were aimed towards the wealthy for different reasons, both made an enormous contribution to how the wealthy should treat their workers and