Carnegie, the Selfish Philanthropist

Andrew Carnegie was one of the wealthiest men in America but his wealth didn’t come without hard work and dedication. Carnegie was born in “Dunfermline, Scotland on November 25, 1835” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle, the invention of the weaving machine unfortunately pushed Carnegie’s family in to poverty “In 1848, Carnegie’s family left Scotland and moved to Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, where his father and eventually him worked in a cotton factory” (Tyle). After leaving the cotton factory “Carnegie became a messenger boy for the Pittsburgh telegraph office and eventually made his way up to telegraph operator” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle “Thomas A. Scott, the superintendent of the western division of the Pennsylvania Railroad, made Carnegie his secretary at the age of eighteen.” Later, Carnegie took over Scott’s position of the railroad. Furthermore Carnegie “began to see that steel was going to replace iron and by 1873 he organized a steel rail company” (Tyle). According to Laura B. Tyle he continued to build his company when he “cut prices, drove out competitors,

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

Many people at the time were living in poverty and there weren’t enough jobs that had sufficient pay to support a family. The steel industry was one that had the highest earning wages. The average daily wage at the time for iron and steel workers were $1.87, this is far above other industries that had a smaller amount of pay. Others can argue that because of the bad working conditions workers faced in the steel industries, Carnegie shouldn’t be considered a hero. But isn’t the goal of a business to create more jobs? Carnegie believed that it was proper to have completion between the rich and the poor because if there wasn’t, there would be no individuals capable enough to provide such jobs to further expand the essential needs of laborer and those of the economy (Doc 3). When Carnegie sold the Carnegie Steel company to J.P Morgan for $400 Million, the newly named company (U.S Steel) created numerous amounts of jobs employing 168,000 people.

Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was a major American industrialist in the late 19th century and after obtaining substantial wealth from his steel industry, became an advocate for giving back to the less fortunate. Carnegie’s desire to donate to those less fortunate came from past experiences, growing up as an immigrant and working in a cotton factory young. He knew and understood the hardships that people faced when not able to acquire the type of wealth he rose to earn. Through his long life this atypical businessman advocated for many and dedicated the later years of his life to promoting the general welfare of the world.

Perhaps the most controversial of Andrew Carnegie’s qualities is his belief in Social Darwinism. The English philosopher Herbert Spencer convinced Carnegie that it wasn’t bad to be successful. It was “survival of the fittest” in the business world and there was no reason for Andrew Carnegie to feel guilty for obtaining more wealth. Throughout Carnegie’s life, he displayed his firm belief in the certainty of competition. In fact, he was afraid of competition and did all he could to obstruct or completely remove it when it came to his

Andrew Carnegie was a man who started from nothing and built his way up to find his fortunes in world of steel and factories and after retiring set himself to a life of philanthropy donating his fortunes to the people. This isn’t to say he was an entirely good person however, as his time as a business owner and as an employer. Whether he was a captain of industry or a robber baron is up to your opinions, but I believe he was a true captain of industry.

Carnegie is looking out for the best interests of the rest and his admirable goals are clearly seen from this quote. He puts power in the hands of those who can make a difference with the excess amounts of money given by wealthy men. If inheritances were instead used during life to help the community instead of

In Carnegie’s work, he focuses mostly on the job that the wealthy have in regards to people of lower social classes. Carnegie stated in his “Gospel” that one of the many roles of the man of wealth is to “become the mere agent and trustee for his poorer

Andrew Carnegie. Who was he? Was he just a robber baron or a captain of industry. Andrew was a self made Entrepreneur in the late 1800s. He was the owner of the Carnegie Steel Company which monopolized the steel industry. In 1889 he wrote the famous “Gospel of Wealth” which made the use of libraries to give to the worthy poor that were smart to use them. He also gave away 350 million dollars. On the other side Carnegie’s steel workers were treated poorly by long working hours and reduced wages. He also gave support to the plant manager Henry Frick who hired Pinkerton thugs to intimidate workers on strike and many were killed in the conflict. Andrew Carnegie was sometimes saw as a robber baron taking others money to give away not spending his own money On the other hand people saw him as a captain of industry giving to the worthy poor with libraries and millions of dollars.

Buffett claims, “I don’t believe in dynastic wealth”, and Carnegie was one of the first men to ever support and demonstrate the idea of working to the top by oneself, not being born into it. 2) Both also did not give their children a large amount of their wealth. Buffett says, “I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing nothing”, and Carnegie did the same. 3) Finally, both believed in contributing their wealth to the country and charities. In 2006, Buffett announced a plan to give away 83% of his fortune to charity when he passes away. We have also seen an idea similar to this through Carngie, who also gave a large of his fortune away to charity after death. In conclusion, both of these men are extremely commendable businessmen. The only significant differences between the two men’s view on the responsibilities of the wealthy is that Carnegie accentuate on serving only those who are eager to oneself, while Buffett’s goal is to contribute as much as he can to those who are disadvantaged. Carnegie does not want people taking advantage of the charity, whereas Buffett does not really focus on whether the person being helped is worthy or

He established many other steel plants, and in 1892, he merged all of his interests into the Carnegie Steel Company. This act from Carnegie is fitting with one of his most famous quotations, "Put all of your eggs in one basket, and then watch that basket." This firm became one of the greatest industrial enterprises in America. Carnegie later sold it to J.P. Morgan's United States Steel Corporation in 1901 for $400 million, which would be a little over $4 billion today! After retiring, Carnegie's fortune was estimated to be as large as half a billion dollars. From that time on, with the philosophy that the rich have a moral obligation to give away their money, he devoted himself to philanthropy. Although ironic, this man of great fortune strongly believed in the merits of poverty for the development of character and work ethic, and determined that wealthy men should not leave their fortunes to their children, but should give it away, claiming "The man who dies thus rich, dies disgraced." The picture of community service, Carnegie is quoted as saying, "Pittsburgh entered the core of my heart when I was a boy, and cannot be torn out. I can never be one hair's breadth less loyal to her, or less anxious to help her in any way, than I have been since I could help anything. My treasure is still with you, and how best to serve Pittsburgh is the question which occurs to me almost every day of my life." Colonel James Anderson, who Carnegie

For Carnegie, there was a need to balance between the individual and fairness in order for society to function correctly. That is to say that those who enjoy the possession of large sums of money shouldn’t just look out for themselves and their own needs or wants at the time to make decisions on how to use their fortune, but instead, should try to use such resources for the benefit of all individuals of society. However, with this Andrew Carnegie didn’t mean that wealth was there to be distributed equally among all men. Instead, he believed that wealthy individuals were superior to the rest of the people and therefore, should be the ones managing surplus earnings since they had the experience and knowledge required which made them more fitted to do the job. According to Carnegie’s idea under this system based on principles and responsibilities, if everyone was to do their part of the job society will continue to experience

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

Andrew Carnegie was a firm believer in idea of individualism. That everyman must work and rise on his own ambition alone, that each man for themselves. In other word, he did not believe in the communist thought of working