Essay on The Gospel of Wealth, by Andrew Carnegie

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 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.

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

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).

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.

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.

According to Carnegie, it was naïve to think that “work for work’s sake” brings satisfaction and he did not believe that “laboring for each other” is inherent to man’s nature. He suggested it would be a waste of energy to try to “bend the universal tree of humanity.” Carnegie believed this “tree” had produced “the best and most valuable of all that humanity has yet accomplished” through “Individualism,

Andrew Carnegie understood the importance of using the money he had earned throughout his entrepreneurial career for the benefit of all of the people around him. “There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. It can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered during their lives by its possessors.” Carnegie argued that the first two modes of disposing of surplus wealth were not the best way to do so. For the first mode, he felt leaving too much money to his children worked more to injure the recipient than to benefit him. As

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.

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.

I've never been very keen on reading writing from the 1800's, so when I found out that I had to write an essay on The Gospel of Wealth, to say the least I wasn't too thrilled. When I first started reading The Gospel of Wealth, I didn't understand half of the things Andrew said, however after around the 17th time, it clicked. Andrew had said there are three different options where money can go after a wealthy person dies. The first place Andrew said the money could go to is to the family of the deceased. I agree on the points of this article about why money shouldn’t be left to the family of the recently dead.

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

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

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.