Andrew Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth” revolves around his ideas regarding capitalism, wealth, poverty, and public good. One main claim Carnegie makes, that sticks out in my mind is: the best and only way to handle the wealth inequality that has come about, is for the wealthy to distribute their surplus capital in such a way that benefits the masses. He declares this as he states, “The surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense the property of the many” (Carnegie 11). Prior to noting this claim, Carnegie argued that the government should not give the poor charity and that private groups should not simply give them money to help them., as often times this money is spent improperly, and not towards benefiting the masses.
Instead,
…show more content…
I do concur with Carnegie, that most money spent by the poor is improperly spent, for items either gone seconds after their purchase, or that provide no help towards gaining wealth, as he informs the reader that, “Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity today, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent “ (15). I also agree that it should be the wealthy’s responsibility to spend their money to better the masses, and the community, yet it doesn’t seem like a practical idea. Carnegie explains that one of the duties of those with wealth is, “unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance” (13). It seems unrealistic to me that someone with wealth, especially someone who grew up with wealth, would not live an extravagant lifestyle. That they wouldn’t use their money in large amounts to better themselves, is not a sensible thought. Even those who grew up without wealth in the family often act this way. Although they are more likely to distribute their money to help others, with wealth comes arrogance, and the unlikeliness that they will put others needs over themselves. So although I agree with Carnegie’s idea, and think it would be beneficial if it could work, I feel it relies too much on the idea that the wealthy will want to distribute their money, with is unfortunately not
He explained that they had the responsibility to be philanthropic and donate their wealth to benefit society while they are living. If the wealthy keep their riches until they are dead, then it simply implies that the deceased would have wanted to bring the money with them if it were possible. Carnegie also explained that family members should not leave each other inheritances. By leaving them with a large amount of money, it gives family members no motivation to work hard; becoming lackadaisical. He wrote how one should contribute to society through charity, by donating towards a physical cause; and not by giving money to a homeless person.
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.
Speaking of where that money, in document #10 we see a small cartoon post from The Saturday Globe, Utica, New York, July 9, 1892. At the bottom it conveys, “Forty Millionaire Carnegie in his Great Double Role” With this message, it displays Carnegie both giving away a Library to Pittsburgh and money to Scotland, and cutting wages from workers. This drawing signifies what he does with the money rather than paying his workers with that money. Looking at wages in document #7 helps to see how much a worker are paid in a chart, even though iron and steel workers look like they have decent wages(daily hrs. 10.67, daily wages 1.81), it was to many unfair wages. Compare this to Carnegie’s daily “wage” was ninety two grand! Confirming wages are unfair.
Andrew Carnegie was born in Dunfermline, Scotland in 1835. His father, Will, was a weaver and a follower of Chartism, a popular movement of the British working class that called for the masses to vote and to run for Parliament in order to help improve conditions for workers. The exposure to such political beliefs and his family's poverty made a lasting impression on young Andrew and played a significant role in his life after his family immigrated to the United States in 1848. Andrew Carnegie amassed wealth in the steel industry after immigrating from Scotland as a boy. He came from a poor family and had little formal education.
In conclusion, “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie has some interesting ideas and a very philanthropical outlook, however this is not a reasonable way to solve economic issues and cross social lines. It allows the poor to receive hand outs and takes away the incentive to work. Even a man born into wealth can squander it and be left with nothing if he is not a hard
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, 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
One major claim that Carnegie addresses in his essay, “The Gospel of Wealth” is that excess wealth is only used effectively when not simply given away, but administered so that it only helps those who are worthy of receiving charity. Throughout his essay, Carnegie discusses in length the methods wealthy people use to dispose of their excess wealth, such as leaving it for their family or completely giving it away after their deaths, and talks about why they are ineffective. According to Carnegie, when giving charity, “...the main consideration should be to help those who will help themselves…”(Carnegie, 4). The only time charity is useful is when the beneficiary uses the money to their advantage to better their lives.
Andrew Carnegie, the “King of Steel”, the benevolent employer, the giant of industry, was among the greatest influences of the second industrial revolution. It is sometimes questioned whether Carnegie was the ruthless, sneaky steel tyrant some made him out to be, or the generous, benevolent education benefactor he appeared to be. I believe him to be a combination of both, but more so the great giant of industry.
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.
Social Darwinism and The Gospel of Wealth were two late 19th century ideas that helped shape America’s views on social, economic, and political issues. The former applied the theory of natural selection to sociology and politics while the latter outlined a way for the country’s newly minted rich to redistribute their surplus wealth to the needy. Both concepts offer insight into the 1877-1900 period in American history known as the Gilded Age.
Considering both points of view, I believe that rich people play an important role in helping people in need and that God has no Quarrel with the rich who use their money wisely and with justice and compassion. Therefore I disagree with the statement, “There should be no rich people as long as there is poverty in the world.”
What surprised me the most about Warren Buffett’s lifestyle for being one of the most affluent and inspirational business leaders is that everything he has spent is less than 1% of his earnings and the 99% plus of what he has made he plans to give back to society. He claims that it is silly of him to not give it to people who can use it the most and it is doing no good in his possession. It also surprised me that with him having as much money as he does that he would give it away. But with his spending philosophy it was to give it do someone who could really use it the most. It also was pointed
Firstly, it’s acceptable for there to be rich people in this world because there is a possibility that some kind-hearted rich person would donate a generous segment of their wealth to those suffering from poverty. An example of this type of rare, generous person would be John Laing, a faithful Christian who faced many troubles trying to bring his father’s business forward; however it resulted in heavy loss at the beginning because of his desperate need to succeed and achieve a lot. After eventually succeeding in bringing his business forward and being one of the most richest and successful business men in his community and beyond, John Laing donated nearly all of his money to charity. However donating most of his money to charity did not decrease his ambitiousness, helping others motivated John to start larger projects and earn more money, because the more money he earns the more money he can be able to donate to help the poor. Another Christian role model aspect in John’s personality is that he also doesn’t brag about his billion dollar donations, for example he anonymously provided money for the “London Bible College” to be begun and be established. Therefore people like John Laing have proved to the world it is possible for a human to be spiritually and physically rich.
An anonymous article published by the online newspaper, The Economist, explains the revolutionary experiments conducted by Paul Piff and makes the unconventional statement that it is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity. The thought of poor people being more generous than the rich is something that wouldn’t make sense to most. Some may ask themselves, “Why would someone who has “less,” give more?” But this question is one that I have never had to ask myself. I come from a single-parent, lower-middle class household in one of the poorest sides of San Antonio, Texas, and I have been collecting direct evidence on why Paul Piff is right for my entire life, before I had even read about