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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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’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.
...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.
Reich, Robert. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor Poorer.” The Work of Nations.