Carnegie and Gompers had similar ideas for the roles of wealth in society and in the power and value of different social classes. Both individuals wrote articles directed towards the wealthy in hopes of sending positive messages of improving the lives of the poor. They also agreed the wealthy and powerful refused to share money, mocked the poor. Although they had similar ideas for the roles of wealth, the main distinction between the two was Carnegie’s goal was to explain to the rich what they should do with their money while Gompers wrote to Judge Grosscup explaining that the Pullman workers are suffering.
The rich tycoons of their society refused to share their money with the poor. Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers both wrote their essays towards the wealthy with hopes to make a difference for the poor workers and unemployed. Rich tycoons would do anything to
…show more content…
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. By handing out money to a beggar, you are “only saving yourself from annoyance…” (Pg. 15) Carnegie states that nobody improves by almsgiving for you will only aid the person’s addiction. As an advocate of Social Darwinism, Carnegie believed in competitive natures within his workers. He believed in a definite separation of classes and it was not only needed, but also
The inequalities in America during the gilded age came from an unequal distribution of wealth, leaving only a small percentage of individuals with riches while the rest suffered in poverty even with constant overproduction of everyday necessities. People argued that social darwinism would chose who was meant to be rich and the survival of the fittest would deem who was better than the rest. From 1870-1895, journalists and critics dismantled the inequality during the period and some offer their own solutions.
From early civilizations to modern day social systems, economic status has always been a determining factor of power. Kings, queens, dukes, princes, and princesses possessed the greatest amount of wealth and thus the greatest amount of power over others. By having large amounts of wealth, royalty could control the actions of others below their economic status. This fact even applies the functions of modern American society. For instance, regardless of the specific circumstance, wealthy individuals have power over the actions of those below them. They control others by buying their loyalty or simply through others’ envy of them. Such principles can be applied to both men and women of wealth. The novel The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald,
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
In Document A-2. Source: Andrew Carnegie, “Wealth”, North American Review [1889], Carnegie says, “This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance;…” Carnegie means that it is the job of the wealthy to be role models that promote a simple, non-materialistic lifestyle. In Document C-2. Historian B, 1953, Historian B says, “They also created a model of philanthropy for all to follow.” For example, in Document A-2.
The concepts of poverty and wealth only have meaning relative to each other. While poverty can’t be eliminated without wealth becoming meaningless, the vast difference in living conditions between the wealthy and poor must be addressed. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy industrialist, and Peter Singer, moral philosopher, both argue that philanthropy should improve the living conditions of the poor. However, their approaches to philanthropy are vastly different, and both have inherent flaws. Singer’s philosophy that everyone has a duty to give away all their excess wealth until the point of “marginal utility” also removes the wealth incentive that drives societal productivity. On the other hand, Carnegie’s paternalistic policy of educating the poor to
In a nutshell, it can be argued that in the event of serious economic developments, various people and groups held different views of what exactly a wealthy society should be. It is crystal clear that Andrew Carnegie and William Graham Sumner held same view on wealth accumulation whereas Henry George strongly advocated for policies that would enhance equality.
Carnegie, Andrew. The Gospel of Wealth. 391st ed. Vol. 148. N.p.: North American Review, 1889. Print.
It is surprising to think that the poor had not been oppressed in 1791. Someone would think the poor have always had a heavy burden. The majority of America’s population is poor and they are ignored and portrayed as aliens whom we should have no contact with. Finally, the rich are extremely privileged in countless ways.
...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.
Society today is split in many different ways: the smart and the dumb, the pretty and the ugly, the popular and the awkward, and of course the rich and the poor. This key difference has led to many areas of conflict among the population. The rich and the poor often have different views on issues, and have different problems within their lives. Moral decay and materialism are two issues prevalent among the wealthy, while things such as socio-economic class conflict and the American dream may be more important to those without money. Ethics and responsibilities are an area of thought for both classes, with noblesse oblige leaning more towards the wealthy.
Andrew Carnegie and Samuel Gompers were two important people during the Guided age. This is the era where big industries started growing and taking over. They both had different viewpoints about the big industries that grew in the Gilded Age and the challenges this presented to working people. The only similarity in both views was they were geared toward helping the less fortunate. They way they went about it were on opposite ends of the spectrum. Andrew Carnegie believed that the wealthy should put their money back into society and not spend it frivolously, while Samuel Gompers believed that workers needed to organize into labor unions to protect themselves from the growing industries. One thing they both agreed on were big industries was
Wealth has both a good and a bad side. It can change the life of a person for the better or worse, and that is clearly shown in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby and Zora Neale Hurston’s Their Eyes Were Watching God. Wealth effects the lives of the characters of Their Eyes Were Watching God very differently than the characters of The Great Gatsby. Janie’s wealth came about, mainly, from her failed relationships. Gatsby, on the other hand, earned his wealth, despite it being through questionable means. The characters also used their wealth for different reasons. Gatsby used his wealth in hopes to win back the love of his life, and Janie’s wealth was simply an asset to her. Even though there are many differences in how the characters live, there are similar outcomes (change wording). Their Eyes Were Watching God and The Great Gatsby take place in very different places, but despite that, their relationships and happiness are similarly affected by wealth.
...th what little they have, however; why is it left to the poor to have to suffer the consequences of these political choices. The persistence of extreme poverty and social ills speak to a situation that bears for a different approach. It is clear that capitalism and free market solutions cannot spread wealth as advocated. American governments have shown their reluctance to admit this discrepancy through the strategic creations of welfare policies and welfare reform coupled with placing blame upon the citizens who possess little power to change market decisions that govern and effect their lives.
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.