One of the best-known philanthropists was the American industrialist Andrew Carnegie, who devoted the latter part of his life to giving away most of the huge fortune he had amassed in the steel industry. Following the principles laid down in his essay “Gospel of Wealth” , Carnegie returned over $300 million
Andrew Carnegie not only provided opportunities for employment but he also “gave away 90 percent of his fortune during his lifetime”(Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Fabian pg7). He believed that “a man who dies rich… dies disgraced (Sharpe, par 13)” which sealed his beliefs in giving whole-heartedly.
The typical millionaires portrayed in the book were not the jet setting, high profile, luxury car driving executive that most would equate with affluence. In fact, the typical millionaire is a 57 year old male, self-employed, with an average income of $247,000. They are fairly well educated, wear inexpensive suits, and drive late model American made cars. On average, these millionaires live in modest homes and work in occupations such as: contractors, auctioneers, farmers, owners of mobile home parks, and stamp and coin dealers. These individuals are organized, live within a budget, and spend considerable time and energy investing. These individuals are also self-described tight wads. In lieu of receiving money directly for their time, the authors offered to donate money in the interviewee’s name to a favorite charity. The reply of most of the millionaires was “I am my own favorite charity,” and kept the money for themselves.
In this article, Singer argues that prosperous people should give all money not used on necessities to charity. This bold argument will either persuade or disinterest someone fully. There are many pros and cons of Singer’s argument.
Today donating to charitable causes is a widespread among the world’s wealthy people. Some are contributing the majority of their vast fortunes, “Warren Buffett, who has committed 99 percent of his fortune to charity upon his death, along with Bill and Melinda Gates, who have given more than $28 billion to their foundation and say they plan to give a significant portion of their remaining wealth to good causes.” (Yen). In The Great Gatsby a large amount of Gatsby’s wealth is wasted on lavish parties for people who are indifferent about him. The Buchanan’s are even more selfish. Tom frequently sees the poor when he visits his mistress Myrtle, yet he never feels an obligation to help them. It appears as though the affluent people of today feel that helping the less fortunate is more of their responsibility than the rich of the Roaring 20s did. While the wealthy still don’t support the destitute to their full abilities, noblesse oblige is much more present today in America than it ever has been.
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.
Carnegie believes that surplus money should be used in a way that produces the greatest benefit to society as long as the wealth is spent wisely. He argues that it is not wise to give one’s fortune to a charity because there is no guarantee that the money would actually benefit the poor. “Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day,” Carnegie states, “it is probable that $950 is unwisely
During the Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie, a wealthy business tycoon, monopolized the steel industry, manifested a steel company that drove America’s industry further into success, and eventually he became a billionaire in the late 19th century. With such a high abundance of wealth, it would be easy to spend it on one’s selfish desires, however, Carnegie showcased his true colors by expressing his adoration for the arts by partaking in charitable acts of donating money to local libraries, education, and scientific research. Through his opportunity to have ownership of billions of dollars, Carnegie built a leadership role as one of the only dedicated philanthropists during the time of the Gilded Age where many men, including Cornelius Vanderbilt, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan, had an abundance of wealth, but lacked any participation of philanthropist acts. As a result, Carnegie further showcased how owning so much money can exhibit one not succumbed to greed through his book, “The Gospel of Wealth,” where he describes how those who own large expanses of wealth have the responsibility of giving back to the community in ways such as philanthropy. Through the ownership of an over surplus of money and the understanding of the importance of charitable acts, Andrew Carnegie was able to develop
Emily Andrews argues in her essay “Why I Don’t Spare “Spare Change”” that it does more harm than good to give money to beggars on the street rather than giving to an organization such as United Way to help the needy, pointing out that “one cannot be certain that one is giving to a needy individual” and that by giving to a charitable organization “ones money is likely to be used wisely.”
the duty of the rich to help lead these people towards prosperity. However, like Sumner, Carnegie also believed that the poor cannot simply be given wealth for it is a waste. “Of every thousand dollars spent in so called charity to-day, it is probable that $950 is unwisely spent…” (Carnegie, 55). He even goes on to say how it would be more beneficial for mankind if
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.
He introduces three potential ways. One is to leave their wealth to their sons. Another is to distribute it throughout their lifetimes. The last is to give their money away when they die. Carnegie, discards the idea of leaving wealth for relatives. He explains that back in the times of monarchies the relatives would "become impoverished through their follies." In addition to urging the wealthiest not to leave their fortune to their relatives, Carnegie's idea also helps support his opinion that in any environment, being poor is a "character flaw," and people were unable to live up to their relatives in the monarchs. Carnegie also objects to the rich distributing their money after they die. He cites a law, in Pennsylvania, which states that any money left by the deceased, is to be taxed 10 percent by the state. Thus, while not giving in small amounts, so their money is not deemed "useless," the top class should donate in generous sums during their live times. He states multiple reasons why one should do this. One is so the institution does not idolize the giver. Also, the gift should go towards a cause that is at least somewhat connected to them. The example Carnegie gives, is of one who was admitted to a university hospital. One who has a connection to the recipient, will donate reasonably, and it lets the philanthropists understand what they are doing, is valuable. Yet although the rich can benefit the lower classes significantly, the government can not rely on them to alleviate the widening economic
If we look at these ever-present needs and realize the U.S. is an affluent enough society to meet them, we realize Carnegie may not have been as fit a person at distributing wealth as his public persona would indicate. Carnegie’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because he was a wealthy man; Galbraith’s essay is now probably included in collegiate literature because it stands on strong, morally-compassionate ideas. Galbraith would likely have chosen to redistribute wealth in a compassionate way that attempted to remove the environmental factor that causes certain “islands” of the population to remain poor and unproductive, paying special attention to the opportunities of the children in that area. Even further, he [Galbraith] ( 2010) proposed solutions for those who have no means to contribute to the productivity of society: the sick, the handicapped, the mentally ill (p. 413).
In the list of the contributions you will find all different types of positive aspects from the learning perspective. One is " The recognition that we all influence others and in turn are influenced by others everyday of our lives whether we know it or
He suggests that money given to a charity could morally bring about the same type of satisfaction, than if going on vacation or spending money on a video games (Singer 336.) Singer also suggests that often time’s society is afraid of where their money will end up or how it will be use when donated. Singer names four charities that are in existence which are single-handedly devoted to improving the lives of those less fortunate (Singer 337.)