Carnegie Writes A Great Deal About How Individual Children

As young as 33, Carnegie was pulling in an annual income of $50,000 a year, a huge amount at that time, and this was enough for him. Carnegie was a firm believer that anyone could make it to the top, and that it was the wealthys’ duty to help the poor work towards a more comfortable life. Carnegie said that “the man who dies rich, dies disgraced.” This is a greedy, unselfish philosophy that a robber baron could not conceive.

Social classes have different standards of living. By properly administering wealth, Carnegie becomes the trustee of his poorer brethren’s funds. He believes the wealthy man, with his superior knowledge and experience in financial matters, is better suited to administer these funds. Carnegie says he would be “doing for them better than they would or could for themselves” (399). A wealthy person could buy a few acres of land, build a hospital, and create a hundred jobs in the hospital while creating affordable or free health care. The wealthy do not have to worry about how much it would cost if they were diagnosed with pneumonia. They simply take the diagnosis, pay for the treatment, and move on with their lives. A diagnosis of the same magnitude to a poor person could be life threatening. When Carnegie talks about

Andrew Carnegie, "The Gospel of Wealth," discusses the way human life has transformed over the years. These changes can be good or bad ones, depending on how people use them. People are becoming more civilized. Every change has a price to pay, nothing comes without demands. Later on the text evolves into discussing surplus wealth and how people handle it. The three methods of adjusting excess wealth. One in which the leftover wealth goes to the family. As right as this may seem, it has some drawbacks, for one, the son may not want to work hard to earn wealth since it was passed down to him already. No incentive for him to get an education or career. The second method is used for public purposes. As noble as this sounds, the individual waited

The Gospel of Wealth is primarily about the dispersion of wealth and the responsibilities of those who have it. Carnegie thinks that inheritance is detrimental to society because it does not do any good for the

The fact that their parents did not provide economic outpatient care was astonishing. This means most millionaires were not financially supported by their parents. The author’s research indicates that “the more dollars adult children receive from their parents, the fewer they accumulate, while those who are given fewer dollars accumulate more”. I figured these millionaires were raised in a wealthy family and didn’t want to live any other way. I thought they were given things by their parents throughout their life. Another trait is their adult children are economically self-sufficient. The authors clearly believe that giving money to adult children damages their ability to succeed. I agree with this because if their children keep getting life handed to them on a silver platter they won’t learn the value of a dollar. They’ll think that daddy or mommy will bail them out whenever they’re in trouble which will not teach them anything about being successful on their own.

According to Carnegie, the responsibility of those who receive charity from the wealthy is to give the money only to those who deserve it. In 1889 Carnegie wrote an essay, “The Gospel of Wealth,” in which he argued against what he called “indiscriminate almsgiving.” He began with the statement that there is a valid and significant difference among worthy and non-worthy poor. Some people, Carnegie argued, are poor through no accountability of their own: sometimes situations puts one in an undesirable position, making it hard to advance despite one’s best determinations.

This also prevents the family member or the heirs of the inheritance to be spoiled. Carnegie had a great point for doing this. For some strange reason, Carnegie cut the wages of his steel workers while at the same time putting money toward public programs that would benefit mankind. He even stated that he could put more use of that money than the workers ever could, which is ridiculously egotistical and rude. By not giving his workers a fair wage, he was hurting the economy. Our economy is based off of consumers spending their money. In my honest opinion, I think Carnegie is a selfish attention seeking mastermind. He seems very sensitive to what other people think of him. Don 't get me wrong, he sounds like a nice, caring, and independent man. His intentions though, are outweighed by the means and basis for his profit: unfair and underpaid labor. The money that he made from his steel factory was ironically against his “giving” attitude that he was trying to generate. I think that after he realized that he would never have to worry about his financial situation ever again, he focused on becoming a public figure and cared about the public opinion of himself. An example to prove this would be how he reacted to the steel strikes. While he was visiting Scotland, his next in command (Henry Clay Frick) replaced all of the strikers with immigrants. This action is said to have caused the death of 10 men. Carnegie took the

Wealthy businessmen helped fill the gap between rich and poor by donating much of their profit to those less fortunate. Big businesses during the Industrial Revolution boomed, and as a result, business owners acquired a large profit. Andrew Carnegie was one of the select few large business owners of the Industrial Revolution who gained a significant prophet. He was not only wealthy, but also invested his money for charities and the poor. The ability to give to the poor and to charities was a positive impact from the growth of the upper class. While contributing to the society by setting up free public libraries and other resources, the wealthy did not interfere with the lower classes self preservation and survival. It insured the survival of the fittest while opening opportunities for the less fortunate to grow intellectually and better their chances for future progress (doc

That was always my experience—a poor boy in a rich town; a poor boy in a rich boy's school; a poor boy in a rich man's club at Princeton.... However, I have never been able to forgive the rich for being rich, and it has colored my entire life and works."

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

Carnegie was a wealthy man himself, but he practiced exactly what he preached. He notices how American society has revolutionized and created the divide between the rich and the poor as it changed. Carnegie compares the American past equality to the equality experienced among the Sioux Indians. Carnegie does not disapprove of the change, but recognizes it as “highly beneficial” (Foner 29). According to Carnegie, the evidence of the changing society is present in the “contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer” (Foner 29). Although Carnegie recognizes the divided between rich and poor, he does not see it as a bad thing, nor does he believe that people should stop obtaining wealth. Carnegie believes that the wealthy should use their money to provide for good instead of “hoarding great sums all their lives” (Foner 29). Carnegie approves of the implementation

Some are born rich, while others will, unfortunately, must suffer for the remainder of their lives. Time goes on and who gets treated with more respect and has more opportunity to do ideas with their life? The filthy rich or the dirt poor? Money is the key essential to everyone’s lives no matter what anyone says. Without it, the world could not exist.

Rather, we’re born into a sea of narratives, and beliefs that we pass on from generation to generation. A child born into a family that retells stories of financial hardship, accepts beliefs about money like money doesn’t grow on trees, and rich people are bad people etc. When life asks the now grown up child if she wants riches or an average middle income life, she can’t help but choose the latter. After all she’s been trained to respond that way all of her life. Deep down she believes with all her heart that riches are not for her.

I have also seen a counter example in a people that may not be rich, but they were brats. I was in program called Upward Bound, while I was in high school. Upward Bound was created for at-risk teens that may not have come from the wealthiest of homes and they are usually first-generation college students. While I was in Upward Bound it was common to see people with nice things, but they had worked for them. They wore expensive clothes; they had all kinds of expensive technology like MacBook’s and iPads. A lot of them worked too and they would off-set the cost of a lot of their things. There were some that didn’t; that acted like they deserved to have things given to them just for being present. In Upward Bound they would help us by giving us checks for our mileage and gifts all of the time. There were some people who were just ungrateful for what they were

So that one does not benefit more by chance from or inheritance, it is reasonable to assume that a child must be separated from their parents, and all are to be given the same education to ensure that no one child benefits unequally in relation to another. In order to ensure that all starting points are equal, we must then ensure that all children have the same education and the same social life, as both are the result of chance and have a direct influence on how successful they are. Otherwise, it would merely be the result of a chance purely based on who one’s parents were. In this argument, however, Milton Friedman sees an illogical distinction between what he sees as “personal endowments” and those of property. In his book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman argues that such a distinction is untenable, and offers three distinct examples to prove his point. In the first two (the sons of Russian commissars who inherit money, or the American millionaire who sets up a trust, or provides for the education of his child) these advantages are seen as the result of property, where another individual “inherits” (to put it loosely) a naturally good voice. If this example is unacceptable, one can substitute with many things