Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Merit and demerit of ageing population
Impact of population aging
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Merit and demerit of ageing population
Andrew Carnegie stated that the problem of our age is the proper administration of wealth and his opinion precisely reflects the real situation. Because it can be observed throughout history of human beings that usually majority was in such poverty, which barely enables them to survive. Carnegie was one of the richest men in the world of his times and maybe he knew as a successful businessman what the actual problem in distribution of wealth is. He has proposed possible solution of beneficial wealth distribution for this problem and it actually might work in his times. However, economy has changed compared with Carnegie’s times and it has become more global as lots of technological innovations were implemented. Robert Reich described current global economy in his work titled “Why the rich are getting richer, and the poor, poorer” where Carnegie’s solution may not properly work. The Carnegie’s solution may not properly work taking into account the obstacles such as increase of competition, permanent work in business and ageing population. Nevertheless, this means that only possibility of success of solution decreases, therefore it is not sensible to infer that the solution will not work at all.
As has been said, Carnegie suggested solution for problem of administration of wealth distribution of surplus fortune in order to construct community services and money donation for those who really want to improve his or her life. Carnegie proposed the solution of constructing community services such as parks and libraries owing to the donated money. Construction of community services is much beneficial rather than fractionally giving money to every poor. This is because these community goods may bring such conditions which will give chanc...
... middle of paper ...
...aking into account that relative expensiveness of healthcare in developed states and small number of children they have, who possibly may have supported their parents. Therefore the gap might widen and it could be hard to rich men to maintain these old and poor people.
In conclusion, Carnegie has proposed solution of distribution of money to community and ambitious poor people, which could successfully implemented in his times, however, in present time, somehow it may be hard for riches to implement this solution in the changed economy where competition has increased, businessmen tends to develop their business permanently and old people is being aged creating new factor for social tension. Nevertheless, this does not mean that Carnegie’s solution could not be implemented at all. Rich man, who has high morality, will always manage to share his money to community.
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. Sequentially, they used their power to prevent controls by state legislatures. These circumstances effect the way one
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
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.
Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant, was the second richest man at the time but unlike other high-class people of his time he believed that the divide between the poor and wealthy needed to be smaller. Carnegie, unlike most in his position at the time, is actually expressing his want for more change, the improvement of social gaps, this makes him an outlier of the time . He describes America in the industrial revolution as very similar to England in the way of the effect of the Revolution. With little to no opportunities to gain wealth, the working class suffered through poor sanitation, bad working conditions, and limited food, factories taking over the country's workforce. In the article, Carnegie describes the changes of the human way of life over the past hundred years observing the revolutionization of the world. This source helps us understand the vast difference of the poor versus rich living conditions and the way the industrial revolution is affecting society. Although he mentions the changing living conditions, he also implies the moral shift that was
The rapid development of global economy with the opening of new markets worldwide gave way to the development of new means of production and also to the change of ideologies across the world. Alongside with that, the division between different groups or classes within societies became more apparent as some people got richer and other poorer. These two phenomena, the worldwide development of industries and consequent class struggles, have been analyzed by two major thinkers of their times, Karl Marx and Robert Reich. Their essays have been influential and are similar in sense that they analyze existing conditions of societies and give projections on future fates of people, or more specifically, fates of classes. In this paper, the main focus will be on the fate of the wealthiest people; these are the bourgeois for Marx and symbolic analysts for Reich. More specifically, it will be argued that the rich people will be in the worst position according to Marx and this position will cover two aspects: material aspect, which is how well the rich will eventually manage their properties, and the inherent antagonism of classes and its consequences for the wealthy.
...failed in his duty to redistribute his surplus wealth to his community, and that the State should heavily tax the remaining estate. This belief that men of wealth were responsible for bridging the widening gap between the well-to-do and those hoping to do well led Carnegie to publish The Gospel of Wealth.
A wealthy person, with the desire to do well with their fortune, could benefit society in a number of ways. Carnegie has verbally laid a blueprint for the wealthy to build from. His message is simple: Work hard and you will have results; educate yourself, live a meaningful life, and bestow upon others the magnificent jewels life has to offer. He stresses the importance of doing charity during one’s lifetime, and states “…the man who dies leaving behind him millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life, will pass away ‘unwept, unhonored, and unsung’…” (401). He is saying a wealthy person, with millions at their disposal, should spend their money on the betterment of society, during their lifetime, because it will benefit us all as a race.
...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.
“The top one percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding and their fate is bound up with how the other 99 % percent live (752,753)”. The author credits the values of the audience and shows sympathy towards them by telling money cannot buy anything. This statement also directs back to the beginning by telling that 1% does affect 99%. And, it gives rise to inequality in the economy. Hence, the author is clear about his argument and insight and does not change his opinions throughout the essay in order to show concern towards the
The issue of global wealth redistribution has become an increasingly fundamental topic in our globalized world. The vast amount of literature on this topic has left philosophers and economists to seek questions on whether there is a duty to redistribute wealth and in what way it should be distributed globally. The uncertainty over this remains a key impediment to real life progress. Nevertheless, the crucial aspect of this debate is to understand whether individuals have an obligation to redistribute wealth internationally. There are many deep controversial issues that conflict with the justness of responsibility. However in this paper, I will be using a cosmopolitan outlook by opening up the discussion of the current global situation and what duty an individual in the developed states has to redistribute globally. I will also analyze the poverty in the third world, and assess whether distributing wealth is the most effective mechanism compared to other alternatives.
In a chart adapted from Andrew Carnegie, called Carnegie’s Philanthropy it showed Carnegie giving away large amounts of money to different causes all benefiting them in some way. In the chart it showed that Carnegie gave most of money to educational purposes. In the chart it said that Carnegie’s foundation is giving out about 100 million dollars a year most of it going towards education. To have concern for others it means to think of other people before yourself, to not be selfish, to be thoughtful. In this chart Andrew spent 350 million dollars to help organizations for their needs. Carnegie put out his money to distribute to the public. Many heroes have different traits that make them who they are, in Carnegie’s case it was his concern for
Carnegie was a self made millionaire, breaking free of his poor, immigrant beginning by means of the steel industry. As a young child he desired access to the wealth of knowledge housed in libraries, which were reserved for the elite. His humble origins, among other reasons, led to Carnegie donating his fortune back to the community through the building of libraries and music halls. As noted in his book, “The Gospel of Wealth” Carnegie believed that “the man who dies rich dies in disgrace.” To this day this giant of wealth is known as one of the most generous and influential figures in american
Income inequality not only harms us fiscally, but also affects our mental and physical wellbeing; therefore, it is important to identify the right ways to control wealth distribution among people.
Reich, Robert. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer.” The Work of Nations.