Mauricio Ochoa
AMH- 2042
6 October 2017
Essay 1: Andrew Carnegies Wealth
Andrew Carnegie, one of the most well-known and richest industrialist’s in America, reasoned that the rich must live modestly and use their prosperities to sustain the living standards. Carnegie had gathered phenomenal wealth and familiarized himself with other rich industrialists of his period. In Carnegies Wealth, it was considered in portion to persuade these men to help dispense their wealth and to convince the appointed community that the rich remained on top to put their money to use. Carnegie says, “the poor enjoy what the rich could not before afford.”
Carnegie’s argument about the great riches of industrialists was dedicated by how he validates massive money
…show more content…
If not, the human society loses equality. I certainly must agree with Carnegie’s argument because in life it’s not about money nor the wealthy people. Carnegie was a very poor when he was younger and reading this story on how he worked hard to invest in railroads, telegraphic, oil, and industries and then selling his steel company, Carnegie steel company, too J. Pierpont Morgan is an amazing story. Carnegie worked his way up to become one of the most phenomenal industrialists in the United States is amazing. Coming from a non-wealthy family, I sort of felt my self be in his shoes and how working hard along with being smart will pay off one day like it did for Carnegie. Carnegie says, “the reconciliation of the rich and the poor; a reign of harmony” (Wealth, 426). What Carnegie is trying to describe in this essay is that in this lifetime we live in, the ethical part of it is more important rather than the prosperity. In my opinion, I agree with Carnegie because money does not buy people happiness. For example, very rich people, such as recent singer who passed away named, Chester Bennington, or also known as, “Linkin Park”, died from depression, but had all the money in the world. Its only in the moment when someone wants something, makes you wish you had it but when you work hard like Carnegie then it will feel more rewarding. Carnegie states, “yet the man who dies leaving behind many millions of available wealth, which was his to administer during life.” I chose this last quote that Carnegie said towards the end of the essay, because I believe what he was referring to is for those that worked their whole childhood life but never got to appreciate their wealth. Those that did not get that prodigious opportunity will pass away “unwept, unhonored, and unsung” (Wealth, 427). Additionally, Carnegie’s story was very inspiring and he comes to show that giving should be completed in a
I believe that Carnegie’s views are certainly ethical and that the wealthy must assist the poor if not tons of people can die like the many miners who lived tedious low-level existing lives. The miners had a very poor and unhealthy lifestyle they were covered in ash and dust all the time. The dangers of working in the mines were plenty they may be crushed to death at any giving time by the roof burned by exploding gas or simply blown to pieces by the premature blast. There were so many men and boys that ended up being crippled or dead.
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
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.
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
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
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
The richest man in the world, in his time, was Andrew Carnegie. His story of success was truly one of rags to riches. After coming to the U.S. from Scotland as part of a working-class family, he moved from job to job, eventually becoming more influential and gaining a large sum of money. Soon he was using his wealth to contribute to many public services, such as libraries and schools. Andrew Carnegie's life and actions have left a long-standing legacy and have contributed greatly to the American way of life, particularly toward education.
Andrew Carnegie Essay written by aliciareagan@neo.tamu.edu A man of Scotland, a distinguished citizen of the United States, and a philanthropist devoted to the betterment of the world around him, Andrew Carnegie became famous at the turn of the twentieth century and became a real life rags to riches story. Born in Dunfermline, Scotland, on November 25, 1835, Andrew Carnegie entered the world in poverty. The son of a hand weaver, Carnegie received his only formal education during the short time between his birth and his move to the United States. When steam machinery for weaving came into use, Carnegie's father sold his looms and household goods, sailing to America with his wife and two sons. At this time, Andrew was twelve, and his
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
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