Jessica Avalos Avalos 1. Professor

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

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

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.

Andrew Carnegie believes in a system based on principles and responsibility. The system is Individualism and when everyone strives towards the same goals the system is fair and prosperous. Carnegie’s essay is his attempt to show people a way to reach an accommodation between individualism and fairness. This system can only work if everyone knows and participates in his or her responsibilities. I will discuss Carnegie’s thesis, his arguments and the possible results of his goals.

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.

Andrew Carnegie, born on November 25, 1835, was a Scottish philanthropist who was one of the richest men in America in the 1900 's. I completely agree with Carnegie 's opinion of how the rich should donate their money toward the good of mankind before they die, but disagree with his actions toward his workers . He started working in a cotton mill making $1.20 a week only to upgrade to $2.20 working as a messenger boy. He eventually taught himself telegraphy and worked as Thomas A. Scott 's assistant for $35 a month. He moved on to investing, with the help from his “mentor” Scott, in the Woodruff Sleeping Car Company and several small iron mills and factories. He was so successful that he was

This onslaught of capitalism directly revolutionized modern industrialism as well as the industrial city. Machines morphed the predominately agricultural nation to a herd of factory and corporate workers. Swarms of people, both native and immigrant, flocked to major cities. “The present century has been marked by a prodigious increase in wealth-producing power. The utilization of steam and electricity, the introduction of improved processes and labor saving machinery, the greater subdivision and grander scale of production, the wonderful facilitation of exchanges, have multiplied enormously the effectiveness of labor.”(George, p.20) The major problem with this newfound industrialism was the way in which the workforce was treated. Capitalism was supposed to provide a way out, a way ascend the financial and social staircase, if you worked hard enough. This however was not the case, if you were a loyal, hardworking employee you simply got to keep your job, and if you were in any way injured or incompetent you were fired.

During the nineteenth century, Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie had definite opinions about the affects of industrialization on society. A greater understanding of their views on history and humanity can be gained by comparing and contrasting two written artifacts: The Communist Manifesto and “Wealth.”

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.

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.”

In his article “Wealth”, Andrew Carnegie argues for the wealth to give back their wealth to the community by providing “public institutions of various kinds … [to] improve the general condition of the people” (Foner 30). Carnegie uses this article to promote his Gospel of Wealth idea and provide his interpretation of the changing America. Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth stated that “those who accumulated money had an obligation to use it to promote the advancement of society” (Foner 28). Carnegie’s articles focuses on the themes of Capitalism and Inequality, which continue to shape society.

To simply give money as “charity” to a man who has none, is to only feed into his follies as a man. Carnegie believes that in an every 1,000 dollars given to charity, 950 dollars of it goes to waste. The rich man who simply hands money away in small sums to others themselves only stalls the growth of character and ambition throughout the Nation.

Criticism of the economy can differ dramatically. Many might have very polar opposite ideas as to what needs to be done in order to better provide for a society's economic well-being. This is definitely the case between Karl Marx and Andrew Carnegie. Despite some basic similarities regarding the need for economic change, Marx's "Communist Manifesto" and Carnegie's "The Gospel of Wealth" prove incredibly different in how they claim to provide real solutions for economic problems. Marx demands that the people take back control of the means of production and redistribute wealth to all; while Carnegie insists that only an elite few in a society are responsible enough for handling the wealth and should remain in absolute control of it, even when determining how it is being redistributed into the society.