The distribution of wealth has always been a conflict of interest between those in an industrial society. Many times, we find the all the poor being grouped as oppressed, and all the rich being grouped as oppressive. But this is not the most accurate way of thinking. We see Andrew Carnegie as part of the rich being grouped as oppressive, or a villain. Given the fact that he saw his success in the height of the American Era of Industrialization, Carnegie got a lot of backlash for the issues surrounding the poor that worked for him. But he cannot simply be defined by the issues with the wage decrease, and therefore, does not deserve to be called a villain. Carnegie received a lot of hatred from those working under him. Most of the rhetoric unsurprisingly arose around the time of the Homestead Strike, when workers revolted against the …show more content…
This is exemplified in Document O, which was a comic published around the time of the strike. Carnegie is shown decreasing the wages of workers and giving away gifts to other areas of interest. Given that the document was published at the time of increased insecurity and anger, we cannot take it as a full, unbiased reflection of how people thought back then. Document I shows that during the same year of the strike, steel workers were actually making more than many other industrial wages, and working the same amount of hours. A wage cut did happen though and even if it was not bad on a general platform, it hurt many steel workers. Carnegie could have easily ignored the issues and let it die out, but he seemed to have tried and fix the problem. We are not sure why he didn't increase wages, and so we have to assume there was something holding him back. To compensate though, he gave away 4 million dollars, from his pocket, to a Homestead relief fund
As a philanthropist, he donated money to support education and other facilities. However, his philanthropy cannot cover up the fact that he was still a villain. That leads to the big question: Did Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropy make him a hero? In my opinion, his philanthropy did not make him a hero at all for various reasons. One of the myriad reasons of Carnegie not being a hero was because he hired
Just like the treatment his workers endured Carnegie wasn't any nicer to his competitors. Andrew Carnegie was a phenomenal businessman. Much of his success is due to how he operated his business. He watched the costs of his business intently (Document C), always making sure that the steel was being produced at a lower price than what it was being sold for (Document D), and he watched his competitors even closer. In March 1889, when Allegheny Bessemer Steel built a mill directly across from Carnegie's mill it intimidated Carnegie.
Andrew Carnegie, a late 19th century steel magnate, was immensely successful during the Gilded Age. He kept wages low while eliminating competition, so that workers had no choice but to stay in Carnegie’s company. The Gilded Age is so called because the top appeared to be gold (i.e. the richest people were doing extremely well) but on the inside there were insurmountable wealth inequalities (I.e the rich succeeded at the expense of the rest of the nation). Andrew Carnegie was a large causer of wealth inequality . In his “Gospel of Wealth” he justifies the trend by stating that in an ideal world the rich would give to the poor, but unfortunately our world is impossible.
According to the Average Daily Hours and Average Daily Wages in US Manufacturing 1892(document 7) showed that the average working hours per day of Carnegie workers were around 10 hours and the wages per day was about 1.5$ which is very cheap. According to document 8, showed about his thought about rich people. He told that the man who was rich will die with honor. He concern about rich people but did not care about the labourers. This Business thought and management could be the important evidences to proof that he was not a
One argument that could be made would be from Document 1. This tells us Carnegie’s opinion of society in which he states he believes in the survival of the fittest and thinks you need to work for what you want. People could take this as that he doesn't want to help poor people and that he doesn't care about them. Also it could be supported through the fact that he gave most money to schools and organizations and not to poor people. Another argument could be related to the treatment of workers in Document 3.
Carnegie could have discussed the reservations the poor had about the ability of some to become rich through industrialization and how they felt about his Gospel of Wealth. Did the poor really want money from the rich, who had control of many forces throughout the nation? Carnegie fails to provide a bias opinion on the divide between the rich and the poor because he is no longer poor. He expresses the faults in the wealthy hoarding their money for themselves, but continues to believe the wealthy should exist. The classifications of rich and poor also goes against Carnegie’s belief that the American society was changing into something new, when in reality they were adopting some of the old colonial ways like
Andrew Carnegie's company Carnegie Steel Company spread across Pittsburgh Pennsylvania to transport goods from city to city (Doc 5). In 1900 Andrew Carnegie made the large amount of $23,000,000, therefore, his daily wage would be about $92,000 (Doc 7). This evidence helps explain why Andrew Carnegie was a hero because when he started the steel mill he gained integrity and trust among the American
It was very impossible to ignore the fact that the main problem that was surfacing was the difference between poor and rich. From time to time, all of Carnegie’s work has become into practice. Most people agreed and some disagreed, but the most important aspect of his philosophy was to get a positive message across to people in America through his article. As Carnegie stated “When these apprentices rose to be masters, there was little or no change in their mode of life, and they, in turn, educated in the same routine succeeding
One piece of evidence that supports this reason is in document B. We can see that Carnegie said that he didn't want to leave his money with his family. But inside of leaving his money with his family, He would leave it to better uses. I believe in not leaving all of his money with his family because they didn't work for it and other people need it. A second piece of supporting evidence is in document B as well. He didn't leave his money with his family.
Carnegie was without a doubt a beneficent man. Not having any desire to kick the bucket with a crazy measure of cash, Carnegie chose to help general society. He was exceptionally contributing individual from society and gave away as much cash conceivable. " There stays, then, just a single method of utilizing incredible fortunes; … The obligation of the man of riches (is to) set a case of unobtrusive … living … ; and … to consider every surplus income … as trust assets … to create the most useful consequences of the group - the man of riches in this way turning into the … operator for his poorer brethren, conveying to their administration his prevalent astuteness, experience, and capacity to direct; showing improvement over they would or could accomplish for themselves… " (Document 8) says Carnegie.
Carnegie's wage was approximately 92,000 daily in a fifty hour shift. An employee's average daily wage depended on what they worked in but ranged from $1.09 to $1.87 (Bureau of the Census, 1975). Andrew Carnegie's workmen deserved more than what he offered them. Also, the labor these underpaid workers performed was in an unsafe environment where many died or were injured. An example of the life-threatening conditions in accordance with Hamlin Garland, “Sometimes a chain breaks, and a ladle tips over: and the iron explodes” (Garland, 1894).
Meet You in Hell Essay Meet You in Hell: Andrew Carnegie, Henry Clay Frick, and the Bitter Partnership That Changed America is written by Les Standiford. Standiford is a historian and author who lives in Miami. In “Meet You in Hell”, Standiford tells the story of two men during America’s Gilded Age, Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick, who rise to be among the wealthiest men in history. Carnegie and Frick rise to power, dominating the new found Industrial Era.
Andrew Carnegie was a “robber baron” as shown in the way he acted towards the people who helped him reach the top and the terrible working environment that he subjected his workers to. He did various things in an attempt to positively alter his public image by overshadowing the awful things he had done. At the start of Carnegie’s career in business, he worked under Thomas Scott where he learned how to be successful in business. Minimizing costs were the best way to make a business profitable and lowering those required cutting wages, demanding 13 hour days and utilizing spies as a way to thwart possible strikes. He would use many of these ideas and practices in his own business causing him to eventually become the undisputed king of steel.
The mid to late 19th Century, into the 20th Century, created a vacuum of opportunity for capitalists in America to dawn their influence and make a great impact on American society. With the Industrial Revolution storming full speed ahead in the United States, men like John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and J.P. Morgan used their business ingenuity of ‘trusts’, ‘pools’ and other business tactics to rein supreme in their respective markets. These influences, however, were not perceived well by the lower classes, as many felt the brunt of these tactics, and ended up getting hurt, as the capitalists got richer. Thus despite the philanthropy and economic strife gained through these men, it will fall on deaf ears as their
Andrew Carnegie wanted to create a capitalist system, which involved the lower class working underneath of the wealthy, who would then give their surplus of wealth to society The duty of the wealthy is to set an example of modesty among the wealthy, to provide for the needs of those that depend on him and to lend money to his fellow man to give back to the community. The man of wealths duties as carnegie explained in paragraph nine is to “provide the poor a trustee and a sole agent that provides them with wisdom experience and doing for them better than they would do or could do for themselves.” ( Carnegie, paragraph nine). THis system would give the wealthy many responsibilities, but Carnegie believed it was their duty to help others when they were unable to help