Carnegie's Argument For The Redistribution Of Wealth

The Gilded Age had many relevant people arguing about economy at that time. Three of the people that argued about economic issues in society are Sumner, Lloyd, and Carnegie. Sumner had a biased approached towards economy in favor of the powerful wealthy class. While Lloyd had a completely contradictory view from Sumner’s opposing most of Sumner’s ideas. On the other hand, Carnegie had a favorable argument for economic equality by offering help to the poor class in his way. Although these authors have opposing views on the economic inequality, they support their views with valid solutions and proposals.

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.

In the Gospel of Wealth Carnegie discussed how wealthy men help the poor and working class with charity. Since the wealthy get to choose where the money goes to it helps the poor more than it would by being given to them. The money went to programs and services the poor needed rather than being given to the poor that would spend it on unneeded resources. The superior education and understanding of the industrialists and wealthy helped the poor and working class more because with charity they could choose what programs would get the funding needed to help the poor.

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

In the gilded ages dating back to the nineteenth century both Andrew Carnegie and Henry George were known as very influential men of their time both striving towards the common goal of deflating poverty in hopes to diminish it as a whole. Though both Andrew and Henry shared a similar feat they had very different approaches and ideas of methodizing the overall goal. Carnegie was a shrewes businessman who viewed it to be acceptable for very rich and very poor people to co-exist as long as the rich provided that their surpluses aspired the community with parks or libraries for example to better themselves known as the "lasting good," and

He discusses all that is wrong with the wealthy individuals and how they are spoiled. He makes his argument by revealing how wealth is disposed of, “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can all be left to the families of the descendants; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administrated during their lives by its possessors” (3). The author is Andrew Carnegie and intended audience is the general public but more specifically are those of wealth and make them conscious of how surplus wealth is disposed of. This is a primary source and reveals that even though this was how the world was a decade ago, it is quite similar and not much has

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

He seems to say that if everyone had equal amounts of income that there would be no incentive to produce quality work or have a good work ethic. Carnegie shows this by saying that the contrast between the wealthy and the laborer is “essential for the progress of the race”(Carnegie 451). The law of competition means that better quality products come from competition because you have constantly improve to be the best. Competition between companies and laborers forces everyone continually work hard. Carnegie thinks that it is in the best interest of the race to give the wealth to a few because it is better to help many for years to come than equally divided among people to be wasted.

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

In William Domhoff’s article, Wealth, Income, and Power, he examines wealth distribution in the United States, specifically financial inequality. He concludes that the wealthiest 10% of the United States effectively owns America, and that this is due in large part to an increase in unequal distribution of wealth between 1983 and 2004. Domhoff also states that the unequal wealth distribution is due in large part to tax cuts for the wealthy and the defeat of labor unions. Most of Domhoff’s information is accurate and includes strong, valid arguments and statements. However, there is room for improvement when identifying the subject of what is causing the inequality.

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

There are different opinions towards inequality, some people are accepting of it while others dislike the whole idea of inequality. Is it okay to let the wealthy have more control than the poor? Should their ideas matter more than the non-wealthy? And most importantly should the poor be okay with this, if not what must they do? In “Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie and “The Communist Manifesto” by Karl Marx, both Carnegie and Marx expose their thoughts behind inequality and its traits. They both focus and touch upon the poor (proletarians) and the rich (bourgeoisie). They bring up the pros and cons about inequality, capitalism, and communism. Inequality was in Carnegie 's view. In his opinion progress required the processes of competition. Making capitalism an engine of progress. Carnegie believed that there is good to inequality while Marx begs to differ. Marx had his own view on capitalism, he believed that it would eventually result disastrous. Marx believed communism was the best solution to keep both the proletarians and bourgeoisie in an equal place. Both of these socialists have much to say about capitalism and communism and also for economic inequality. They both share different points of view, neither wrong or right. Their opinions are based towards their life experiences and this essay will be noting the differences between they share on inequality, the means of production, and capitalism.

Dear editor, Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth can have some valid points about things. One quote Carnegie stated is “In bestowing charity, the main consideration should be to help those who will become themselves” (61-62). He is explaining how if people were to help themselves, then that’s the biggest charity there is because you won’t end up becoming or remaining poor. This in my opinion is true since you have to work hard in life to succeed and it doesn’t come easy. A second point Carnegie made was “we accept and welcome… as conditions to which we must accommodate ourselves” (5-6). He is saying how we as people accept conditions to which we have to work hard for and maintain it and work with other people with that same mindset. I agree because

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

Nonetheless, the third mode is which Carnegie beckons as the start of a great evolutional growth in the distribution of wealth amongst classes. Carnegie believes that the rich must supply the poor with not money directly to their pockets, which would coax temptations. Rather, the rich must supply the less fortunate with the means to grow as people, to heighten ambitions, and raise the level of class. This is done through, for example, the construction of a public library. Carnegie, in fact, tells a tale of Mr. Tilden. Mr. Tilden, a wealthy man, builds a large public library in New York City. This distributes more than a couple quarters could ever, the ability for any man to enhance his learning and opportunities for free.