Comparing Wealth And The Life Of A Coal Miner

In the year of 1852, the industrious skill and dedication of a young twelve-year-old boy named Andrew Carnegie captivated Thomas A. Scott of the Pennsylvania Railroad. 1 Awed by his diligence, Scott immediately hired and made Carnegie his personal telegrapher.2 With a “rags to riches” background that inspired others to work hard for the American Dream, Carnegie knew exactly how the less fortunate felt when they were compared to the wealthy. Noticing how society achieved social, economic, and political equality before industrialization, Carnegie shared his intake on America’s momentous shift from an agrarian society to an industrial society in the late

Carnegie, Conwell, and Alger Advocates of Wealth for All During the late nineteenth century, a form of Social Darwinism emerged called the Gospel of Wealth also known as the Success Gospel. Social Darwinism is “Herbert Spencer’s adaptation of Charles Darwin’s concepts of natural selection and “survival of the fittest” as it applies to human society” (Nash p. 417). Social Darwinists believed that the social order was the product of the natural selection of the individuals that were best suited for the existing living conditions. These individuals were white, Anglo-Saxon, wealthy men.

Underpinnings and Effectiveness of Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”, Carnegie proposed a system of which he thought was best to dispose of “surplus wealth” through progress of the nation. Carnegie wanted to create opportunities for people “lift themselves up” rather than directly give money to these people. This was because he considered that giving money to these people would be “improper spending”.

At the end of the 19th Century, as the United States was experiencing rapid industrialization, a reconfiguration of the social order yielded opposing visions of social progress. Andrew Carnegie, wealthy businessman, and Jane Addams, founder of Chicago’s Hull House, put forward different methods to achieve such progress, where Addams focuses on creating social capital in a seemingly horizontal manner while Carnegie advocates for a top-down approach. While both of them seem to reap a sense of purpose from their attempts to improve the nation, their approaches vary depending on their vision of the composition of the population they want to uplift. First, Carnegie and Addams’ desire to improve society is partly self-serving. For Carnegie, improving society is the role of the wealthy man who, “animated by Christ’s spirit” (“Wealth”), can administer wealth for the community better than it could have for itself (“Wealth”).

When the question of what to do with our wealth is raised to us at the end of our lives we read Andrew Carnegies "Gospel of Wealth." Andrew Carnegie argues that there are only three ways in which one can pass on their wealth. Of these three different ways Andrew Carnegie argues that the way to pass down wealth that is most beneficial to society is when it is administered during the lives of the possessors. I agree with the basis of Carnegie denouncing passing on wealth from father to son, and when the possessors of wealth pass away. Also I agree with the notion that Carnegie believes the only effective way to pass on wealth is within the possessors lifetime.

Carnegie, who was a believer of Social darwinism, which was a belief held by many that stated that the rich were rich and the poor were poor due to natural selection in society. This was the basis of many people who promoted a laissez faire style of economy. He believed if you worked hard, you could be successful. He believed that a man of wealth should set modest examples and help those in need (DOC E) Carnegie donated more than 150 billion of dollars for libraries, colleges and concert halls. The high population density of the early twentieth century put pressure on fragile infrastructures and demanded insight from urban planners and politicians.

The late nineteenth century was a pivotal moment in American history. During this time, the Industrial Revolution transformed the nation, railroads had dissipated all throughout the country, and economic classes began to form, separating the wealthy from the poor. One of the wealthiest men of this generation was Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish immigrant who fled to America to make millions off the railroad, oil and even steel businesses. Carnegie is considered one of the richest men in history, and even with all that wealth he decided to give back to the community. As a matter of fact, Carnegie donated most of his funds to charities, universities and libraries in his last few years. He believed that if the wealthy don't give back some of their profits to the community, they are living a dishonorable life, and although I didn't necessarily agree with this radical viewpoint at first, I now am a firm believer in Carnegie's argument about wealth.

The captains of industry believed that the poor people were inferior to the rich people. The rich were superior because they had “wisdom, experience, and the ability to administer”. The duty of a rich person was to help out a poor person which was what was said in the Gospel of Wealth. The Gospel of Wealth is about how the rich person's responsibility is philanthropy. Carnegie believes in charity work so he would donate to libraries, and universities and schools and etc.

For instance, Carnegie presented his library named Carnegie Library, he considers this “the best kind of philanthropy” (Ernsberger). By this he indicates the correct way a wealthy individual should live,is by giving back to the community. On the contrary, Richard argues this as negative affect to the company due to the loss of income. Richard believes that Carnegie shouldn’t have spent his money on helping the community instead, he should have continued to invest it on the steel industry. Overall, Richard views Carnegie as “little capitalist who urged presidents to do right things in Philippines, Panama and international diplomacy [but] had never done the right or moral thing as a businessman,” (Ernsberger).

In Carnegie’s “The Gospel of Wealth,” he argues that the affluent have a unique responsibility to help others by aiding the lower class. He does not, however, promote simply handing money to the poor. In a way, the wealthy should act paternally. He believes that it is the responsibility of the wealthy to provide

Since the creation of the U.S. two hundred and forty one years ago, one of the founding ideals of the nation is that any citizen should have the right to pursue their own dreams. For some the “American Dream” can be defined as the opportunity to gain success and prosperity through hard work, determination, and initiative. John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie personify this concept completely, and although these men were hailed as “captains of industry,” they always hungered for more. John D. Rockefeller is recognized as one of the most successful industrialists in U.S. history, he “was a disciplined, serious, and ambitious man” but he did not begin life as a wealthy philanthropist. Rockefeller was born July eighth, 1839 in Richford, New

“The American Dream” was instituted by the Middle class through vibrant beliefs. As these aforementioned subjects are strongly represented in both Edward McClelland and Brandon Kings articles. The two author have their discrete and indistinguishable ways of revealing the tale of the “Middle Class.” The article “RIP, the Middle Class: 1946-2013,” by Edward McClelland opens with an emotional experience, making it easier to persuade the

Carnegie thinks it is better to build public institutions than give charity to the poor because the poor need to have the “desire to improve” and find help in these public institutions. (Carnegie 30). He believes that rather wealthy “Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives” can find the proper use for their money, which is to help the community. (Carnegie 29). By just giving money to the poor the wealthy are doing all their work and instead the poor should find the assistance they need to improve their lives.

1984 Synthesis Essay Poverty negatively influences how the minds of people work in the world. The fact that poverty exists itself, obstructs people from changing their circumstances in what is known as “the cycle of poverty.” The lower class is incredibly disadvantaged in that it lacks the necessary social and economic resources needed to increase chances of social mobility. In return, the absence of these resources may increase poverty. Therefore, the lower class is unable to change its situation because the majority believes that any efforts to climb the social ladder is highly inefficient.

This idea that poor workers could increase their place in society through hard work and determination truly changed the world. The American Dream is the reason that many of the early immigrants came to America. In the old world, peasants often starved and lived in crushing poverty. Many immigrants decided to journey here for the mere possibility of a better life: “ America was truly a new world, a place where one could live one’s life and pursue one’s goals unburdened by older societies’ prescribed ideas of class, caste, and social hierarchy.” (Kamp 23).