Blog # 28 – Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”
In Andrew Carnegie’s essay, “Gospel of Wealth” originally published in 1889, discussed the steel king’s attitudes towards the working class, the loss of the cottage industries that doomed his father’s weaving craft, and why the capitalist system back then (and by extension even now) is better than what they had. He also then goes on to explore three different ways that the wealthy have disposed of their extra income when or before they die, and he explains why he feels which one is the best.
Back in the apprentice / master days, Carnegie states that the relationship between the two was more equal. They shared the same work space, the same hardships, and the same successes. But, as specialization and factories expanded, the cottage industries with their hand crafted goods could not compete with the factories’ cheaply priced goods and eventually had to adapt or go out of business (which sounds a lot like what happened in Carnegie’s experience). A third option that occurred was to violently resist the change like some weavers and other workers had done when they destroyed the machines in the early 19th Century (the Luddites). In the Carnegie’s case, they adapted and headed for America where some of their family had already had some success.
The problem with working in factories, according to Carnegie, is that the owner no longer works side-by-side with the workers in the factories. There’s a huge gulf between “the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer” and this is beneficial to all, he believes. He uses a visit to a Sioux Indian tribe as an example where the chief’s dwelling wasn’t very different from the rest of his peoples’ “wigwams.” By this, Carnegie inferred that Americans are advancing in civilization because not only are there cheaper goods for all, but that:
“This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential, for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so.”What we basically have here is the survival of the fittest, Carnegie states, in the business world. Those who are best at managing money, creating products, organizing and conducting business affairs will be rewarded because they are the best at what they do.
But, Carnegie feels that the gap between rich and poor has to be addressed in some way, and that’s where the disposal of excess wealth comes in. First, “it can be left to the families of the decedents; or it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, it can be administered by its possessors during their lives.”
The problem with the first way (inherited wealth), Carnegie believes, is that it is rare to find children of wealthy individuals who have NOT been spoiled by a life of leisure or indulgence, and by giving the inheritance to them would be a waste of that hard-earned money. See the 60 Minutes video below on Howard Buffett, son of billionaire Warren Buffett and see what he has done w/ his life so far. The father has made all of his children work for their lives and given them few extra things in their lives (in fact, none of them have graduated from college).
The issues with the second way (money is left to the public or gov’t) is that the real wishes of the deceased abo
ut how the money should be used might be thwarted (though I wonder what happened to wills and stuff like that in Carnegie’s day). This particular quote is probably the most damning: “In many cases the bequests are so used as to become only monuments of his folly. It is well to remember that it requires the exercise of not less ability than that which acquires it, to use wealth so as to be really beneficial to the community.” In essence, it’s easier to spend the money than to make it.
So, Carnegie feels that the best way to address the gap between the rich and the poor is for the wealthy of his and future time periods to follow the third way and use that wealth however they choose, but to do it wisely. People have joked that if Bill Gates just divided up his fortune amongst everybody, things would be nice in the short term. But it literally might amount to $500 a person (my own estimate) and then trigger some staggering inflation across the country as many people use some of that money to go and buy stuff unless they put it away for college or retirement. Carnegie felt that this kind of gift would be a silly idea: “if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite, some of it in excess, and it may be doubted whether even the part put to the best use…”
So, the wealthy shouldn’t be extravagant. They should be modest, and use that money wisely, in effect, putting it aside like a trust fund for when they retire to be spent on things that they feel are important. And, as Carnegie writes, the wealthy know how to spend the money better than the poor: ” the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”
Questions:
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
Due Thursday 12/15 by the beginning of class.
150 words minimum for each question (so 300 minimum total!).
Gospel of Wealth by Andrew Carnegie – http://us.history.wisc.edu/hist102/pdocs/carnegie_wealth.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7391360n Same video below.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Not saying that this happens all of the time, but if a wealthy parent hands the wealth down to a child that has gotten a taste of being spoiled, do you think that the child would look to charities or ways to improve the public? I strongly feel that if you want to get something done right, you have to do it yourself. That might mean an early retirement and a philanthropic way of life as we could see through Andrew Carnegie. If you donate the money to the government or to the people for public distribution, then there might be corruption taking place and the once spectacular charitable vision that you had might not turn out the way you intended. The third option of philanthropy through one’s later years is what I believe to be the best deed one can do for the community and country. Just think how nice our country would be if all the wealthy people didn’t give their life’s earnings to spoiled children, and therefore dispersed it through philanthropy. As Carnegie once said, “if distributed in small quantities among the people, would have been wasted in the indulgence of appetite”. This agrees with my opinion that you should spend your later years as a philanthropist.
2. As I said earlier, in order to address the gaps between the rich and poor, money should be spent on charitable deeds as a philanthropist. I strongly believe this because after reading “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie, I have learned that you can benefit a community and touch so many different lives through donations and charitable deeds. The same thing would happen back in the 1800’s if a wealthy person (in their will) gave all their life’s earnings to a spoiled child: the child would do selfish things with that money and wouldn’t better our society at all. Things such as libraries, schools, and other knowledge based relevant structures can improve our communities. The way of life of spending one’s later years giving back, just as one might have done to them at an early age, can make the world a better place. The lifestyle of a philanthropist is how one should spend their money.
-Spenser Robnett, 2nd hour(This is the real copy!!)
I completely agree with Carnegie’s statement that the wealthy should share the extra wealth. The people with extensive income are usually able to share with the needy even though it doesn’t always happen. Some people are more fortunate than others, while some don’t get the same opportunities as some. However, some make poor life choices which cause them to not have the same extensive income as the people who made good choices. Regardless, I do still agree with Carnegie when he says those with extra money should give back. It’s always a good deed to help society and there’s nothing wrong with helping someone in need. It doesn’t all have to go to one person but you could make a donation to a foundation or charity, or buy food for the hungry. There are many indirect ways to distribute money and help others at the time, assuming they even want to.
To shorten the bridge between the poor and rich I believe money should be spent on housing, food, medical help, and opening store, factories, and other shops to provide jobs for people. They could also pay the workers they have now a little more money or give them an opportunity to earn the extra money with overtime. All the extra money now pays for luxurious things like bigger TVs, better video game systems, exotic vacations, and fast food. We constantly throw away money for stuff we don’t even need, when everyday there are people losing jobs, homes, and their lives. And even still we look down upon those people in pity and disgust as if they are lower than them because we were more fortunate and have a few more dollars in our pocket. I just think there are better ways to bridge the gap besides giving them a dollar or two, why not take a paycheck and give it to the people who really need it.
1. I agree with Carnegie. I agree because although the first two ideas make sense and have their advantages, the person who made the money is not the person spending it in those cases. I think that you can do what you think is the correct thing to do, but someone else will be in control of the money and you don’t know what they’ll do with it. They could either do the right things with it or they could waste all the money on stupid things and all your hard work will go to waste. In the first way, where you let your children inherit your wealth, Carnegie is right when he says that children often become spoiled when they get that kind of money. The second way, where the money is left to the public or government, could end in the government not doing with the money what you wanted. So the third way ultimately is the best because you are in control of it and you can do with it what you wanted to do.
2. I think that more of the money should be spent on education which would give every kid, rich and poor, the same opportunities to successful. I also think that more money should be spent towards health care today and back then because what happens sometimes is people have to get these very expensive medical procedures that they either can’t afford or their health care doesn’t cover enough. This causes them to become poor. I also feel like they should have paid factory workers more back then because they were hardly getting paid enough to survive back then. If they would increase the salary of the factory workers, that would decrease the gap between the rich front office people and the workers in the factory. I think that overall they should have put a lot of the money into increasing the wages of the factory workers who were barely getting anything at all.
Caitlyn Dolan
APUSH A 2nd Hour
I somewhat agree with Carnegie’s assessment on how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I think that inherited wealth is the worst way for the rich to dispose of their money. I agree with Carnegie—passing down the wealth through generations of a family just create a bunch of rich, spoiled citizens, that aren’t aiming to use their money for the greater good. Especially with taxation today, the rich are taxed less per dollar than the middle and lower classes: the rich children and families would simply get richer and create a greater gap between the classes of society. I slightly disagree with Carnegie in his assessment of the way the rich shouldn’t give money to the public and government. I think that in the right hands—like a small community, or a non-corrupt government that looks out for the people—giving money to the public could do wonders. If the rich can take some of their funds and use it for the greater good of an honest community (bequeath it on the public) that would be the best way to distribute their wealth. However, I agree with Carnegie in his assessment that some governments and public areas would use wealth given to them wrongly, like in making a monument, for personal purposes, in ways that wouldn’t help those who needed the money, or in a system that wouldn’t profit from the money in the future. Carnegie is also right in his idea that the rich should spend their cash as they deem necessary, but do it wisely. I agree with this, as long as the rich are “wise”, which many of the very wealthy today prove not to be. Money spent by the rich on charitable organizations and well-meaning ideas (philanthropist ways) are how the rich should aim to spend and share their money.
Today, and in Carnegie’s time, there were significant gaps between the rich and the poor. These gaps divide a society and make for a community that doesn’t work together as a unit, and can lead to bitterness, corruptness, and even rebellion (at factories, by teachers—can be peaceful or not). To address these gaps, money should be spent on things that both need, and that can bring the two classes closer together. Things that are universal between the rich and the poor are education, entertainment, and environment. If there is money to be spent, why not spend it in ways that could make these things accessible for everybody? If money were used to lower the prices of education and lessen the gap between public and private schools, the rich and poor wouldn’t be so segregated in the way that they interact and learn. If money was spent on valuable and enlightening entertainment that was available to the rich and the poor, as opposed to plays and parties that have exorbitant prices to see and enter, then the rich and the poor could connect on a social level as well. Also, if money was spent in improving the environment of the poorer places in a community so that they matched or were similar to the richer ones, then the rich and poor could visit and function as system, instead of an aesthetically divided city. These three things could help to bridge the gap between wealthy and working class individuals of a community, but today and in history money hasn’t been spent on these things. Today, money has been spent on bailing out huge corporations (the rich), as opposed to evening out the economy by creating more jobs for the poor. In history, money has been used to monopolize industry, instead of improving working conditions and raising wages in factories. The rich and the poor may have a difference in funds, but both classes are made up of human beings, and men are created equal.
1.I both agree and disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I agree because, in most cases, it is best to spend wealth during life because it gives you the most control over what happens to it. As the writing stated, children of a wealthy family are most likely to be spoiled and incapable of making a living on their own. Also, government officials may ignore a deceased person’s wishes for any money given to them in favor of their own plans. I disagree with Carnegie’s assessment in the rare event that the children of a wealthy estate are well raised and able to thrive on their own should something go wrong. They may even be trained in the family business and therefore be able to carry on the industry, allowing the family’s reputation and estate to be sustained or even improved.
2.In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, I believe the money should be spent on charities, schools, and recreation centers. If charities are given generous donations, this would allow them to better support their cause, which usually involves helping the poor. If schools receive more funding, this could improve the quality of the education they give, allowing more graduates to go on to higher education, and therefore, earn better careers. It could also lower the cost of tuition, making a proper education more affordable. Recreation centers, such as the YMCA, exist as places where young people can experience many new and exciting activities; some of which may grow into new interests, leading to new career choices. They also provide students with a safe and comfortable environment in which to study and make new friends. Some of these places—the ones affiliated with charities—even provide the underprivileged with a safe haven, giving them a second chance of sorts to get back on their own feet.
-Marisa Williams, 3rd hour
I completely agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I agree because in our generation, we like to spend money, a lot of money. Everyone is out buying cloths, cars, food, or games. Every kid I know always wants something. So if we distribute it amongst the people, it won’t really help, just people will start buying a lot more things. Boys will spend it on video games, shoes, or sports apparel. Girls will spend it on cloths, purses, or other things that they normally would not spend when they are not given money. Some adults might know the right thing to do with the money, like save it, for college or more important things, but some would also be excited about the new money, and go spend it on drinks, or some other they want, but do not need. Some adults would be smart and save the money, but only a very few would do that.
People, who work hard to be rich, should be able to have as much money as they deserve, simply as that. But their life style should be a bit different. They should not spend the money to by extravagant things, and look flashy, but save the money and try to fit into society. After they die, they should have a will, but not give all their money to their children, because they would be spoiled and not be able to live in the hard cruel world. The poor people should try the hardest to work and get money. We can’t control how hard people work; we just have to hope they would want to work hard enough to make a living. If they don’t work hard enough, that’s their fault, and people should not have to give up their own money, to help someone who hasn’t worked enough to make a living for them.
1. I disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the money of the wealthy should be spent, but not entirely. I believe that if someone who has been born into a wealthy family and has not worked, and all of a sudden inherit a ton of money, I believe that the person would not spend it wisely or efficiently. They would buy dumb, pointless things that do not help the overall quality of life. They wouldn’t even think about the HUGE gap between the rich and poor or the government needs. BUT, on the other hand, I believe that if someone was to publically share their money, it would not go to a very worthy cause, if it was to people. It is like the example with Bill Gates. If he gave all his money to the public, some people would not even know what to do with the money, and just spend it. If the money is given to the government, we wouldn’t even know where that money went to. Hopefully it went to the tremendous debt we have now. But maybe it would go to the other things that the government would need spent it on. Overall, I think that the money is in better hands going toward the wealthy inheritance, but I do not agree with the decisions that the wealthy would choose to spend the money. I think the inheritance would be better off keeping locked up away from any hands unless the wealthy needed it. Or, I would agree that a lump sum would go to charity.
2. I think that money should have been spent on better living conditions for the poor or even the overall health of the poor. I think that the wealthy would have to be taxed more so the government could focus on fixing these things. I believe this because the wealthy is who has the money. I think that the money should go to renovating buildings, providing necessities for the poor, and a better work life. We have learned about and read what kind of the working conditions the working class had. They had poor wages, poor health, and poor supplies. The money really needed to go to the wages and supplies the most because with better improvements like these, there would be less strikes and less poverty.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment on how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. That is because when many people obtain money, they forget how to spend it correctly. When people inherit money at a young age, they usually become spoiled and have a hard time with figuring out the actual value of their money. Since they have so much excess money, they typically spend it without a care and on unimportant things. Also, when you leave the money to the Government, you never really know where it’s going to go. Half the time, the government spends money on pointless things that only really helps a few people. However, if they spend money the way that Carnegie wants, the money will typically be put to good use and will allow them to create places of education, like libraries or helping collages out, and also new chains of business that would allow them to create more jobs. In this way, the money would be well spent and would mean something in the many years to come.
2. In order to shorten the gap between the rich and the poor, I believe that the rich should spend money in ways that would allow the poor to get a proper education in order to give them a chance at better jobs and higher knowledge. Also, if they were to spend money in order to create new lines of businesses, it would allow people to find jobs and hopefully help them pay all of their bills in order to get out of the “poor” section of society. If this were to happen, the poor people in this country, and around the world, could perhaps have a fighting chance with getting into the middle class section of society where they could vastly improve their life.
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how people should distribute their wealth. Charity should be distributed among the people. This would much more fair than wealth being given to undeserving children. The children will be spoiled and will have no need for a job, education or anything. This is not fair, and money is more effectively used when being evenly distributed. The one person inheriting it will just spend the unnecessary money ignorantly on unneeded thing. It will be smartly used if distributed over the public, and the money they receive, even if the amount may be small, it can greatly benefit the people. It can be even worse if money is given to the government because it can be useless and not help anyone. Also the government may be corrupt and keep the money for themselves or do something else to their benefit. Carnegie is right. The American people are the most honest and deserving source to receive the money.
To close the gaps between rich and poor the money of the rich should be given to charity. The charity is the best thing to give money to, because it directly benefits the poor and needy. This is only affective if given wisely and to the right people, or else it may be used wrongly. The money may be used to further harm those receiving it. But, if given rightly, it is very beneficial. For instance, Andrew Carnegie gave a lot to libraries, because it helped young education. Creating positive institutions for the youth is much better than throwing away the money on the undeserving, such as spoiled children. This helps closing the gap between rich and poor better than anything else. This is so because instead of throwing away the money, and just limiting the rich, it helps poor and limits the rich, closing the gap a lot faster.
1. I disagree with Carnegie saying that the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I feel that all people who are poor, are poor because of mistakes they have made in their past. Carnegie was a very generous man for saying this with all the money he had and having to back up this statement and all the money he gave. I do understand why people would say that they think that the wealthy should share it with people who are less fortunate, but to me it doesn’t make much sense. The people who are wealthy worked very hard to get to where they are and I think they deserve it. I understand that there are some circumstances in some cases that it is really not the peoples fault and they got some bad breaks, but that small amount of people makes up probably around 5% of all people in the “lower class.” All the others have been cursed this way through mistakes they have made in their life. Weather it was being a drop out or drug problems, there are countless reasons as to why people end up with no job. Overall, I really think that people bring it upon themselves if they don’t have a job to support a family.
2. With all the money in this world and all the things to spend it on with all the technology. I feel over anything, the necessities should come first, such as food, shelter, water and clothes to stay warm. After all the really important things, I think you should go to the near necessities like flashlights and first aid kits. If after all that you still had more money, I think you have earned yourself some form of entertainment. Entertainment is so broad today though with all the computers, iPods, TVs and video games.
Jesse Yaker
12/14/11
5th hour
1. I think that Carnegie is right when he says that the money should be given to what he thinks is the best while he is alive and retired. Giving it all to his would be a crime because they didn’t earn it and they won’t do anything for any one because they will most likely be spoiled and buy useless and possibly (by today’s standers) spend it on illegal thing like drugs, but if the heir is worthy, brought up right, and will continue the business, then they should have the money because they are taking over the business. To give their money to the government or the public would be a waist because it would too all be wasted through corruption and misuse and not a penny to us. If the rich spent it on what he things is right, like libraries, then the government wouldn’t have to pay for that kind of stuff and the money would go directly to the cause.
2. I think that the money should be spent on public services directly. Leaving out the government and doing it personally. A good example would be Bell Ile. If it was bought from the government, fixed up, looked nice, and all the money made went back to it, then I think people would come to Detroit more often. It would be like going to a Tigers game or Lions game or a Red Wings game, people would come spend their money in Detroit and more people would make small business in Detroit and on Bell Ile to make money off of tourist, boosting the economy. If this was all done directly by a rich man, then it could be done better than by the city. The money should go were an independent owner could do better than the government. This would keep the government from messing things up and lower their spending, making more money to come back to use in things like school, more police and fire, play grounds, ect.
1. I believe in some of what Carnegie says, and the parts I believe in, I believe in fully. But, at the same time, I’m forced to disagree with some things that Carnegie says. Carnegie brings up some very valid points about the fact that bringing children up in a life of extravagance lets them rely on and really makes them spoiled and not have to learn to live for themselves, they learn nothing, and future generations learn nothing. Somewhere down the line, the money runs out. I also believe 100% that if a man makes his dollars, they are his dollars and he should use his remaining time on this earth spending his money the way he wishes, as long as it is in a productive and responsible manner, whether it be to charities or public works or betterment of mankind in some way. But at the same time I must disagree with Carnegie when he says the wealthy spend money “better” than the poor. The poor know the value of money better than the wealthy, the wealthy can spend an amount of money that the poor wouldn’t even think of spending, and the wealthy give it little to no thought * (* not all of the Rich are this way, but more than some are). Seeing how Carnegie came from nothing to where he is now, it’s hard to understand why he would say this, when he’s seen both sides, and the recklessness of the Rich and the careful acts of the Poor when it comes to money.
2. In all brutal honesty, it is not our place to say where the money belongs. If a man chooses to earn his wealth, it is his and no one should take a cent from him. We cannot regulate what goes on, and even as we do today, it is not as the Founding Fathers intended. Money and wealth is the fruit of your efforts as a worker and should be yours and only yours. Now, what you choose to do with it is also something that comes with earning it. If we, as a nation, tell people what they can and can’t use their money for, what is the difference between our policy and a dictatorship? Freedom is given to us under the assumption that we as a people are smart enough o use it wisely, but also under the understanding that it cannot be taken away from us, as some people choose to believe.
Elizabeth Hentschel
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth for a couple reasons. Throughout the years people have shown that saving all of your money and giving none away does you no good. You end up dying with tons of money which is then passed down to your children who are usually spoiled silly. The second and third generation most likely have not worked a day in their life for this money that you worked for your entire life for. This is also a problem because you could’ve been helping so many people with your money that is now being put to waste. It’s also a bad idea to give all of your money to the government because you have no idea how they’re going to spend it after you die. The government could be giving it away to illegitimate sources and you’d be dead so you couldn’t stop them! So I think that Carnegie’s median between those two is the way to go. Save some for your family and give a good amount to charities and other sources that interest you. Help people and spend as much of your money helping people while you’re still alive.
2.In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor I think that money should be spent on charities. I don’t mean giving vagabonds on the side of the road money, I mean actually organized charities that are known to help people straighten out their life. If you give random people on the street money, even though they’re poor, you have no idea what they’re going to do with that money. They’ll probably do more bad to themselves then good. If you donate money to charities, for the most part, you’ll be giving to a genuinely good cause that can actually help people who are poor become wealthy. It then makes the gap between poor and rich people much smaller as poor people become party of the middle and wealthy classes. By donating to charities you will not only be making the gap between the classes smaller, but also bettering yourself and your community
1. Yes, I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their wealth because it is the most reasonable. You can’t ask people to just give away their money because many people don’t want to. Also if you were to give it away who exactly would you give it to? If divided and given to everyone it wouldn’t be worth much and would end up being spend on unimportant things. If you were to give it to the government you don’t have much control over what happens with it, and it can get spent on things that don’t help many people. THe best thing to do is ask or encourage people who have wealth to use it wisely. It is their money and they have the right to do what they want with it. Instead of using it to by unimportant things though they should use it in a good way. Either by putting it in a savings account or putting it toward things that they feel is important.
2. To address the gaps between the rich and the poor money should be spent on things that benefit society as a whole, just not one group of people. It should be donated to organizations that would help society as a whole and the standard of living. It could be given to schools to help provide better education to everyone; or to libraries and other charitable deeds. Many people who are considered poor can improve their lives if donations are made to help education and thus give them more opportunities. The gaps between the rich and the poor could then decrease. The wealthy wouldn’t be as boastful of their money and the poor would have more money. Back then if the poor had more opportunities to educate themselves with libraries and better school they would then have more opportunities in the future. Even if they didn’t become rich they could still create a bigger middle class.
Addressing the first question, I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their excess wealth. I feel like inherited wealth promotes, as Howard Buffett said in the video interview, children and generations that expect things to come to them because of their financially status, and the idea that they can spend money of frivolous things. The second idea, money left for the public or government, is just a disaster waiting to happen. The government, nor the public, would be able to handle that. The public would be unable to make a decision on how the money would be spent, due to some wanting it for schools, other for medical research, others for recreational uses, etc. The final idea, to use that wealth how the individual chooses, is what I believe is the most beneficial overall. This is because the individual has the liberty of choosing how to spend the money they inherited/invested/earned/worked for. That individual could choose a number of ways to use the money, therefore, sparing the expense of arguments between family members and public officials. But I also believe that the money should be spent on helping people in poverty and providing them with health insurance. According to a September of 2011 CNN Money article, in 2010, 16.3% of Americans were without health insurance. Although fixing that problem will be extremely tedious and difficult, I think it could be an additional way the wealthy could contribute to society today.
To answer the second question, the money should be/should have been spent on education. Period. I think that is where the entire issue starts. If the poor could get an education, they could be rich (intellectually speaking) and equal (still intellectually speaking) to billionaires. The poor would then be able to get higher-paying jobs and be able to afford a better lifestyle. But because our nation charges so much for a college education, it hurts the poor and middle-class financially. According to The New York Times, in 2009, the national average debt after college graduation had risen 6% to $24,000. A lot of college students cannot finish schooling because they cannot afford it, or when they get out of schooling, they have enormous piles of debt. Because of this, CNN Money states that 85% of college graduates move home after graduation because of the amount of debt piling in their name. Therefore, education is the divider of the rich and poor, and because of the terms of the economy today, it is doubtful those gaps will close anytime soon.
Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MuGc4nCE6g – Michael Moore on Piers Morgan Tonight discussing Education
http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/census_bureau_health_insurance/index.htm – Number of People without health care insurance
http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/debt-3/ – The New York Times
http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm?iid=EL – College Graduates Info
1) I both agree and disagree with Carnegie. I agree that money should be distributed in a charitable way if you have enough to do so. I disagree that you have to wait until you are retired to start giving back. If Carnegie had enough money to put away and not live on, he could have given it away then and done immediate good. He seems to give little support as to why someone should wait until they are retired to give money away. It is definitely possible to earn money and give some away at the same time. Look at the charitable celebrities nowadays. They continue to make movies or television or music while giving back. They feel no need to get their career done first, then hand out their life savings. I’m not saying that Carnegie, or anyone that is or was wealthy, should have given all his money away all the time, I’m just saying that it was possible to do some good all the time. Giving it away towards the end of your life seems like they are just trying to improve their image.
2) In order to address the gap between the rich and poor, I think that money should be spent on charities and causes, such as improving wages for the working class. If the laborers were paid more back then, then they would have been able to make a better living for themselves. Nowadays, the same idea can be applied. Make wages more even between workers and higher ranking employees or the government. Also, like Carnegie did, money could be donated to build libraries or schools to give people an education, which can help them create a living for themselves. Giving money to places that help feed the hungry or house the homeless also can help shorten the gap between the rich and poor. The one thing money should not be spent on, is helping the rich get richer. Leaving money to rich people in a will or helping out people that are already rich does nothing to help the greater community and takes more money away from the already poor.
1. Yes, I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth because people should help out those who are less fortunate than them. If the wealthy have so much extra money, they should donate some of it to help out the community. When a wealthy person passes, they should give most if not all of their wealth away to help out the community instead of passing it onto their descendants. The ones who have the money should invest it or give it away in a way that benefits the community, just like how Andrew Carnegie set up various libraries with his money. Carnegie’s libraries helped encourage education across the nation. Carnegie was an avid philanthropist and he believed that every wealthy person should try to be one too. Carnegie thought that the wealthy should be wise with spending their money, and that they also should be modest. Carnegie didn’t think that passing on money to your children was a good idea, he thought that giving your money to your children will just spoil them even more. He thought that people should work for their success instead of inheriting money. Also, if a kid were to born into a wealthy family, chances are that the kid may be spoiled. Spoiling them even more by giving all of your money to them when you die can have a negative effect. The kids may not want to donate any of that money or help anybody out because they have already grown up being spoiled. Andrew Carnegie thought that if you have excess money, it should be given back to the community and put in the right hands.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, money should be spent on ways to benefit the community. This can be done in various ways. Donating money to charitable organizations can help bridge the gap between the rich and the poor by helping out the less fortunate. The wealthy should try to be philanthropic by donating money to charities. Foundations can be created to help out the poor and needy, or buildings such as schools or libraries can be built to help promote the spread of learning and education. Things like this can positively affect a community whereas if a wealthy person keeps their money to themselves it is not doing any good for the welfare of the community. The wealthy can put their money into a number of things, whether it’s a good cause is up to them, but even giving a little money can help out a lot. Anything can be done to improve a community: through safety, improvement of everyday life, cleanliness, and etc.
Blog 28
1. I disagree with Carnegie’s idea that the wealthy must be tasked with distributing their fortune amongst the poor. I am partially influenced by our times, for no man nor women is remotely as wealthy, nor as powerful as any of the tycoons of centuries past. So at a certain point of wealth I would partially agree with Carnegie. But being a capitalist (Or as the communists might say capitalist pig) I generally tend to think that if you make the money it should be yours to keep. I do agree that choosing which charity (or charitable cause) is far better than “giving” it to the government (almost charitable in itself). Fundamentally I am not against giving charity (especially time donated) but there should be no rule nor “duty” to give charity it should only be only if they (the multi-billionaire) choose to. And in our day and age many of the wealthy choose to do just that a prime example of a wealthy man donating to charities would be Bill Gates, who has donated $28,000,000,000, and plans to donate more.
2. Sadly the gap between the average poor and the average wealthy citizen is growing. Not only due to the wealthy making larger quantities of money, but also less of the poor are earning money (unemployment). Throughout the history of the country (or as long as we have been keeping accurate records) there has been a base unemployment of around 3.5%, or the terminally unemployable. This group contains workers who lack basic skills and training, or may be content to be “looking for work” while on welfare. There is not much of anything that can help this class of citizen, short of abducting their children before bad parenting and influence can affect them affectively reducing this number of people over time, but that would be very drastic. This would help reduce the gap over the long term; simply by helping to reduce the number of ultra poor. This would require a government agency like child protective services would require different qualifiers to take a child from parents and also it would need “teeth” and government financing. I don’t recommend increasing taxes nor borrowing money. The founding should come from program already in existence, specifically I would recommend removing funds from agency called the “botanic garden” simply by eliminating the agency. If more funds would be required, the next agency on the chopping/clipping block would be committee for the implementation of textile agreements.
I both agree and disagree with what the he had to say about wealthy people distributing their money. On the agree side of me, I think that it is always nice to help out the less fortunate. In actual society this never happens, you barley ever see a rich person out helping charities or helping in like a soup kitchen or something of that sort. The only people that I know that do that are professional athletes. On the other side of me there is a tiny part of me that says that they shouldn’t have to give their wealth away. They are the ones who have the money, so they must have made a correct step here or there while they were living or they wouldn’t have all of the money. Sometimes people just get lucky, they get born into a rich family or they catch a lucky break that helps them, but they can’t really help it, it just sometimes happens.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, the money should have been spent on things that would helped the entire community/ population. A little amount of money can go a long way for a person who does not have a lot of it. It could provide him, her, or a family a meal or some sort of amusement, for example a game of some sort. After reading “The Gospel of Wealth” by Andrew Carnegie, I truly believe that even the super-rich people that are complete snobs, could just give a little bit of their fortune, and it could impact someone in ways that they can’t even believe is possible. Even back in the 1800s I think that this rule would still apply. There are a lot of people out there that are less fortunate that most, and if people would spend their money on things for the common welfare than our world would be a whole lot better of a place to live in.
1.) I agree with Andrew Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Too many children who were born into wealthy families have been extremely spoiled and expect everything they want the second they ask for it. They don’t think they have to do anything to get the things they want either, I think they believe, because they are born into wealth, then they deserve it all. Children need to learn to get things for themselves, and get their own money the hard way. Also, I agree and disagree with Carnegie’s disagreement about giving the extra money to the public and government. I believe giving the government the extra money could be a bad thing because what if they use the money for the wrong reasons? It could start some really bad problems and even corruption. I think the money should be put into charity and/or used to make the communities better (which might just go against what I said about the government.)
2.) In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and ever today, I think the money should have been spent for making the communities better, and given to charity so that the poor should have a chance to get the things they need to survive and then later maybe support their family, to the point where they can safe up enough money to have that ‘rags to rich’ experience. If people were to give money to clean up and fix up the communities, maybe we wouldn’t be having all the problems we are right now in the American. I am thinking, that if we spent more money on the things this community needed, or what the country needed, instead of the little personal wants, we could of kept jobs in the United States, and maybe we wouldn’t be having an economic problem right now.
1. I do agree with Carnegie’s opinion on how the wealthy should spend their money by debunking two other, less efficient ways of spending money. However, if the wealthy spend money on ANYTHING they want, then they will most likely spend it solely on themselves and their family. If the wealthy person does happen to be a kind person and give most his/her wealth to various charities, then that is a way that allowing the rich to spend their money on whatever they choose. Also, instead of helping other countries, or organizations that are outside the U.S. and put money towards paying off the U.S.’s many debts, thus boosting our economy somewhat, the wealthy could help the U.S. even MORE than just giving it to a government project. If they do that, then the U.S. could once again be in surplus and compete to an even greater degree with other countries.
2. What the money should have been spent on, and should be spent on, is boosting the U.S’s economy. They could invest in the car companies of Michigan, small companies that could make a difference, and other such things. The wealthy should focus on helping their own country rather than on other countries, but after our country has recovered, then they can donate to the cause of other organizations and countries. However, if the national debt is OVER $15,000,000,000,000, it will take a very long time to fix that, but there is a chance that so much debt could have been prevented if the wealthy spent their money for American products, keeping the money at home and in circulation. Also, the debt is at least partially the government’s fault because the tax on the wealthy was lowered. As philanthropists, the wealthy could help strengthen the economies of many countries, including their own.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I don’t really agree with either of the first two options; however, I understand the reason behind both of them. Giving money to your family and giving money to the public are important things, but those things need to meet in the middle in order to attain the goal of spending wisely. Carnegie seemed to attain the perfect balance of using his wealth for the public (philanthropy) and leaving some for his family. Like stated in the blog, and like I’ve seen on a day-to-day basis, people who are ‘handed everything’ feel they do not have to work, and feel entitled. Not only does this set them up for failure, but also it is a waste of money that could be used for other things (helping the public). Having enormous amounts of wealth is something most people will not have the privilege of experiencing, and (like Andrew Carnegie), I agree that those fortunate enough to spend it should use their wealth how they choose it, but make wise choices.
2. In order to address the gaps in between poor and wealthy, I think the wealthy should spend their money (not all of it, but a good amount) on helping the poor. A person who has hundreds of millions of dollars to spare shouldn’t have that much money when there are people on the streets today begging for a dollar. The money should be spent on giving back: building public facilities (Andrew Carnegie- library), starting foundations and charities, or even donating to schools. Some of the tycoons we learned about in class understood that, while others did not. If those first millionaires had set the example correctly for the future business tycoons, we might have a lot less debt, poverty and an unbalanced economy in this country.
I agree with the way Carnegie thinks that rich people should spend their extra money because I think that if they have earned enough money and are very successful in life they have the right to choose who they want their money to go and for there family members to inherit there extra money which he thought was number one. Also I agree with his second idea of what he thinks u should do with the money is to give it away to the public or government. There could be problems with that though, for example the money could be used in a way that it was not supposed to be used in, but I’m sure Carnegie didn’t have those intentions for the money to be used like that. I think the third way he states to use the wealth however you choose but do it wisely is the best because it’s your choice on how you choose to spend your money and you have to make wise decisions or else something could potentionaly happen.
In order to address the gaps between rich and poor people today and back then money should or should have been spent on education. If everyone had enough money to be able to get a good education people wouldn’t have to be so poor because they don’t have a job and can’t afford anything. It should also be given to charities so that poor people are able to have food, shelter and clothes and are able to go out in the world and find jobs for themselves. They would also be more thankful for the money than giving it to some rich spoiled kid that has grown up with money his whole life as stated in the text. I think donating money to charities and to getting people education is way more beneficial than giving it to someone who is spoiled and greedy and knows they don’t have to work because they already have inherited money.
1. I do agree that Andrew Carnegie had the right idea of the richer or upper class people spending their extra wealth on bettering the community. If the big businessmen and the corporation leaders then would give their money to organizations and other such things, then the country could be better as a whole. Carnegie, after he retired, gave away ninety percent of his money to charities as well as putting it into the production of libraries in his name. These libraries are a use for everyone and it is a great image for an upper class man to be giving back to the community. It was said that Vanderbilt didn’t even do what he did for the money exactly; he was just in it for the power. He loved winning, not money. So why should he have it? Carnegie’s views and Vanderbilt’s views on how the rich should spend their wealth are very different.
2. In order to merge the gaps between the economical classes back in the eighteen hundreds, and even in our time now, the rich must spend money on communal things for all classes use, and donate some of their money to charities. These charities will help the less fortunate to possibly get the operations they can’t afford, get more research on things that can better all of our lives, and in the end, hopefully get the poor back on their feet. The constructing of things such as libraries (like Carnegie) or possibly donations to colleges (Vanderbilt’s only way he gave back to the community from his own wealth) can put a good reputation on those corporate heads and possibly make them more money and popularity status in the long run. These donations can be used to better the community as a whole, rather than just the upper class. In Andrew Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth” he praises the acts and necessities of the rich giving to the poor.
1. I agree with Andrew Carnegie’s assessment of how the rich should distribute their extra wealth. I really like the idea of the rich giving back some of their wealth to other people who are in need. I also agree that it would be not as good to give it to government. This is because I think that the government doesn’t always use the money as wisely as they could. I think that the people who made the money are smart enough to know where to give money and where not to give money. Also charities don’t always use all of the money for good use, only a fraction of the money you actually give sometimes goes for a good cause. I think one of the worst things a wealthy person could do with their money is give it all to their kids. This isn’t right because the kids would become spoiled and they most likely didn’t do anything to earn the money they have. I do totally believe they should get some money to survive and enough to start a career of their own but definitely not all of the wealthy parent’s money and estate.
2. I think the best way to fix the gap between the rich and the poor the money should be spent on majorly educating people. I think it is really important to educate people so the future can be pleasant and better for everyone. Also included in this I think that the money should be spent on renovating schools and universities and libraries, Andrew Carnegie was big on building libraries. Also I think that other parts of the money should be spent on communities and making sure everybody is getting food and housing. Also I think it should be used for medical things like research and other things because we always want to become more advanced in the medical field because we want to find more breakthroughs for things that could help save lives.
-Johnny Reid 3rd Hour
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth because it puts the decision of where the money should go and be spent in the man that earned that money’s hands. This is fair because if you earn such an extravagant amount of money then you should have the decision of where it goes (if it goes at all) and to what charities and groups of people. This is a very good philosophy because if they just keep the money as they retire into old age and plan on passing it down to their children then their children become educationally crippled and do not learn the meaning of earning their own money and the overall meaning of hard work. It is better to give the money away to people that really need and spending it on ways to improve the community and the quality of life in the country.
2. I think that the money should be spent on improvements in our country and donating large portions of money on providing people in poverty with financial support and providing them with solid jobs. I do not think that poor people should be handed large sums of money because they will not have any motivation to get a job and when their funds run out they will be in the same spot. I think that another very important thing to help people in the lower class is to get them health insurance and all people under the age of 20 to be the primary target first because they are the future of the country and are important to the future economy. Older people also need help paying for their medications and taking care of themselves. Money should also be donated into programs that would launch technology that could sustain our countries economy through the future such as more environmental fuels.
1. Yes, I agree with Carnegie’s assessment on how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. Back in the master days, Carnegie stated that the wealthy shared the same hardships, work spaces, and successes as the other workers but, as factories expanded, everything changed. So, I agree that the wealthy shouldn’t pass on their money to their family members. If you are rich and spoiled, it is most likely that the children are also used to being spoiled and they wouldn’t put the money to good use. The children aren’t the ones making the money, they are just spending it. All the hard work in making all the money would be useless for the kids just to spend it. I also don’t think the money should be given to the public or government. In governments they would mostly likely just spend the money and it just wouldn’t be beneficial for the communities. I think that the best way to distribute their wealth is to just do it wisely. They should be humble and help out some of the communities, where it would be beneficial. When they distribute their money, it should be a wise choice because, I think it is more beneficial than passing it down to family members or giving it to the government.
2. I think when addressing the gap between the rich and the poor, the money should be spent on helping communities. When people pass their wealth down to family members or give it to the government it isn’t really beneficial for anyone. Passing the wealth down to a wealthy family doesn’t make a difference. They are just going to do what they did all their lives; spend money. Giving the money to the government doesn’t make a difference either. You are just giving money to the government to help them out. Yet we have poor people living all over and they aren’t being helped. When the wealthy are distributing their money, it should be distributed to places where it will help out society. I think the money should have been donated and put towards charity. When you help and donate money to charities, you are helping out communities and helping out the communities are beneficial to everyone, not just a couple of people. Helping out communities, better our society and make it a better place to live.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment on how to spend his money to charity it was the right thing to do. Carnegie once said, “If you want to be happy, set a goal that commands your thoughts, liberates your energy, and inspires your hopes.” So Carnegie thought of a goal and that was to help the public who weren’t as fortunate as he was. Carnegie started acting on his goal and started building libraries cause he remembers how important they were when he was a child in Scotland. This was important to the public because many people were uneducated so instead of being selfish he spent his money on helping the working class because he had so much money he didn’t know what to do with it all.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
The way to spend money is to give it to charity instead of keeping it you could benefit from helping your community or complete strangers. If you give it to a relative then the only thing they would use their money on is riches and eventually live beyond their means and soon you know it your bankrupt. Also if you give large amounts of money to family everyone gets corrupt and it breaks up a perfectly good family. To live a philanthropist life is the way to go it helps the world alone with keeping together your family and friends.
1. I, defiantly, agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their excess profits. I agree with his first point, wealth should not be given in inheritance to the children, for many reasons. First, it is likely that the children of the wealthy are spoiled because of their extravagant lifestyles. The children of the wealthy will misuse their inheritance on useless material items, and donate little to the poor. The children of the wealthy have never experienced poverty; therefore, they do not know the value of money. I agree with Carnegie’s second point as well. He states that money should not be left to the public/ government. The donator of the money will not be alive when the government distributes and uses their money; consequently, the public could misinterpret the wishes of the donator and spend the funds in a wasteful manner. I agree with Carnegie’s final point most of all. He feels that the optimal choice for the use of excess money is to distribute it wisely. I feel that the money should be distributed to those that struggle and need assistance; however, it should be confirmed that the receivers of the money deserve it and will not misuse the funds.
2. To address the gaps between the rich and poor in the late 19th century and even today, excess money should be used for worthy foundations. Foundations such as cancer organizations, UNICEF and PETA are very worthy of the money. If given, to benevolent foundations, the donator can be certain that the money will not be misused and wasted. Foundations such as the ones previously listed could have been established in the 18th century to provide help for those disabled and struggling. These organizations strive to improve mankind; therefore, the money would be going towards the greater good. If the money is given to government programs, and things similar to this the public could become too dependent on the government; the funds could be given to those who would misuse it through these programs, as well. In all, I feel that money should be given to foundations, because this reduces the chance of misuse and wastefulness. Money given to the undeserving could leave mankind in a worse position than it was in before.
1.) I agree with Carnegie’s opinion of how the money of the wealthy should be distributed to the poor at the discretion of the wealthy people themselves. I think that in either of the other circumstances, the money would not have to opportunity to reach its full potential. If the rich were to take what they had, and use it to do things like build libraries, fund education, and set up systems to help bring up the poor as a whole, then I think that that would be the best way to utilize the power of large amounts of money. As you said, if the rich were to simply divide their earnings to individuals, it would result in one sudden burst of affluence, that would probably not last very long or be very useful. Partly because the money would be stretched thin, secondly because it would not have a long lasting effect and most importantly because, for the most part, I would agree that the rich would have a better understanding of how to best utilize the wealth to get the most bang for the buck. As with all things there would be some risk to this. If the rich were to invest in things that would only keep the rich richer and the poor poorer, then I feel like allowing them to make the money spending decision to be a lost cause; however, on top of the fact that in general I think that people are naturally morally good, I think that the alternatives of the distribution of the wealth could be even more detrimental and useless.
2.) As I briefly stated before, I think that the wealth of the rich should be spent on long lasting products that would in turn help to raise the general standard of living and opportunities for the poor. I think that the rich should use their money to build things like community centers, libraries, schools, and clinics for the general public to utilize. They should also invest in relief funds, college scholarship programs, and community betterment systems that would allow people to live better lives. I do not think, however, that the bulk of the money should be spent on things like country club donations, ostentatious luxury real estate, and successful stocks, only some of it. Don’t be a hater, let the rich enjoy being rich to some extent. In short, I feel that wealthy people should spend a good deal of their money on public improvement projects that would educate, entertain, and uplift the poor in a long lasting and credible way.
1. Yes I do agree with the way that Carnegie thought that the wealthy should distribute their extra money. I really believe in the point he made about inherited wealth. If a child has been spoiled throughout their whole life because their parents are very wealthy, then when they grow up, if they inherit their parent’s money, it would be a waste of hard earned money. This is because the children don’t need the money; they have already been given enough things throughout their life. And I also agree with him when he said that the wealthy should choose wisely what to do with their money. If they use some of their money to care for their family then that is okay, but do so modestly, because you don’t need to live extravagantly. But after taking care of yourself, you should look how you can help your community and the people around you who are less fortunate, discover a way that you can help them.
2. In order to deal with the gaps between the wealthy and the poor, I believe that the money should have/ be spent on things that would/ will better the community. There are many different ways to better the community. When wealthy people gave money to a community in order to build things such as a library or a school, then they were truly helping the community in a positive way. They were supplying the community with resources and way to be educated. But a community was not only bettered by giving such things as a library. It could just be that the rich person gave the poor some money. Any charitable act can go a long way and have an impact on so many people. By sharing your wealth with those who are less fortunate, you are showing them that you really do care about other people besides yourself and you are also showing them that you are there and willing to help them, which can always be a reassuring thing.
1. I agree with Andrew Carnegie in how he thinks the rich should use their money. He says that the rich should use their money how they want but use it wisely. An example of this is Warren Buffet and how he is giving a large amount of his wealth to a charity. I think that Warren Buffet should’ve given more money to his son so he could help out poor farmers because I agree with how Howard Buffet deals with teaching poor farmers how to farm. The Rich shouldn’t give all their money to their kids but do it like Buffet did to where they give still a lot of money but not the whole estate. The rich should do like Buffet and Carnegie did and give back to the people of the United States of America who got the rich as rich as they are. That is why I believe that the rich should do what they want with their money but do it wisely.
2. Money should be spent on educating everybody. Education and knowledge is how pretty much all rich people got to where they are. Everyone should be giving the opportunity to receive an education and most people in America receive this opportunity through a public education paid for by the taxpayers. The wealthy should donate some money to help children in more impoverished areas to receive an education because they should be put on an equal playing field. Andrew Carnegie did this by donating to create all the Carnegie libraries he did. He also showed the ability to go from rags to riches by teaching himself in a library to being the richest and one of the most powerful people of his time. Donating to help impoverished people receive an education will make the rich poor gap smaller by giving poorer people the opportunity to receive an education and get a job which will pay them enough to get into a better place.
1. I do not agree with Carnegie’s assessment on what people should do with their excess money. I don’t think he has the write to make a call on what every wealthy man or woman should do with their money. When Carnegie discusses the fact that money shouldn’t be given to children or other family members, I don’t think he is all knowing about certain circumstances. For example, what if a wealthy family were to have the parents die in a car crash when their child was very young? The child cannot be expected to start supporting itself at such a young age, and if it makes them spoiled, at least they won’t be living in AWFUL conditions. I also disagree with him when he says that it is a bad idea to give out money to the government or public. His main reason for this is that it will most likely be spent incorrectly. Once again, he has no way of being this omniscient figure that knows how the government or charity will spend money. If no one donated large amounts of money to charity, the world would probably be much worse than it is now. So, when Carnegie to spend your money “wisely,” there is a wide range of interpretations.
2. To completely diminish the gap between the rich and poor would require a classless society. However, that would not be feasible back then because of the support of capitalism and the booming economy because of it. And it certainly isn’t going to happen anytime soon in our society. The best way to spend money to reduce the gap would be to give money to places that could create jobs. That way, there could be more cash flow towards smaller households. Also, if the lower class could work among the upper class, as in being employed for them, then the divide could be made smaller. If they worked amongst each other, the rich could have more respect for the poor and vice versa.
I disagree completely with Carnegie’s assessment of how the rich should distribute their wealth. It is up to the rich of how they should distribute their wealth, not by Carnegie’s standards. If Bill Gates wants to spend all his money on swimming pools, he should be able to and not be criticized for it. I do agree with Carnegie’s argument that “the man who dies rich dies disgraced”. The way the rich distribute their wealth is up to them. In my opinion, distributing it your self is the most preferable method, but really any way works well, except by giving it to the government. That never works because for the most part, a large majority of governments are corrupt and there is a higher chance of your money be squandered into someone’s bank account then by giving African children malarial vaccinations. This isn’t always the case, but the sad truth is that in America it is.
I believe the wealthy should spend their money on healthcare rather than libraries and such. While libraries do add quite a lot of educational potential for a small village, a hospital for low-income patients would do even more. There is a large hole that is needed for low cost healthcare, and I can think of no group better to do this task than the wealthy, who actually want to give away their money. A large majority of people in America, especially the poor, goes into debt because of medical expenses. If we could just eliminate half of the medical expenses, it would save much of the poor for ruining their savings and create much less debt in America than there is today. This would also eliminate much undo stress onto the average American family, creating much more healthy Americans in the process because stress causes so much disease (strokes, heart attacks).
I feel that in the first scenario (leaving wealth to your family) is very selfish, if you have a lot of money leave enough of it to your family so that they are well off, but most of it should be used constructively such as for community programs or charities. That way the gap between the rich and poor is made less severe. I feel the concept of the second scenario is good but that the government shouldn’t be trusted with a lot of money. (Look at all the debt we’re in) I agree that in this scenario the wishes of the deceased probably would not be fulfilled, so that is probably the worst choice. I probably would agree that the third version is the best. However, I disagree with Carnegie when he says that the wealthy know how to spend the money for the poor better than they do. Rich people probably know very little about poor people and what they need. A rich person is more likely to donate money to a fancy museum or collage because these are more significant to them than a homeless shelter or soup kitchen might be.
It is important that we do not have large gaps between the rich and the poor, it is best if wealth is spread fairly evenly throughout the country. In order to bridge the gaps between the rich and poor I think that money should have been, and should be spent on higher wages for lower class workers. This way people can fairly earn their own living for their families instead of relying on government handouts, or dying. Money should be spent on improving hospitals, public schools and community centers to improve the quality of living for the lower class. When there is a large gap between the upper class and the lower class then the upper class has the power to control the economy and lots of businesses, while the lower class has no power. If the upper class is corrupt then they could cause a lot of serious problems.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I feel that the wealthy should most definitely distribute their extra wealth. I feel that the people who have the most money should give the unnecessary money to the public and distribute money, making sure that the least fortunate can a have a fighting chance at being at least lower middle class, if not higher. The wealthy need to keep money more evenly distributed than many would like to and they need to keep some money for themselves, but they certainly should give much of their money to good causes. They also cannot trust their money to their children or the government, because either can and will be corrupt in their respective uses of large sums of capital. The wealthy must distribute their extra wealth in order to give back to the country, county, city, or even community that has brought them to great wealth. Ethically, it only makes sense to distribute extra wealth to those who cannot have it.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
Back then, money should have been spent on goods and services. The backbone of the American economy, even though it didn’t fully support it as much as railroads or the like may have; steel, coal, oil, and other resources supported the economy more than any one other thing. But the only thing that was keeping specific individuals with jobs was the fact that objects such as clothing were made more reliably by humans than machines. Once machines became the main force in factories, then it was time to spend on stocks. The way to build up businessmen and develop large businesses was to buy stock, and that was necessary for much of the late 19th century and early 20th century. But during the 1930’s, late 1970’s and in our current time, it is very important to spend as much as possible on menial things that will keep people having jobs. Things like produce, which cannot be properly mass made by machines and needs real people to make. Things sold at stores like Wall-Mart or Meijer also are good to spend money on mostly because transporting them and the actual placement in stores keeps people with their jobs.
1) For Carnegie’s statement that the wealthy should distribute to their extra cash I agree as long as the money is going to go to a charity or schools or libraries. I think this because I believe that directly people shouldn’t get the money because as Carnegie said that if the money is inherited the person will just blow it off and spend it on “Junk”. I also believe this because it gives the wealthy a better image so when they wealthy spread their wealth they end up getting a better reputation in return. I also agree with Carnegie because he was rich so he must know what he was talking about.
2) In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor the money should been spent on a charity, a school fund and other quality helping causes. Back in Carnegie’s day they should been spent on educational tools, more libraries and Charities. I think money should have been spent on more educational tool because the children were and are the future and if schools had more and better educational tools then possibly more children would have possibly ended up like Rockefeller and Carnegie and especially Morgan maybe then we could have possibly dodged the great depression. I think that money should have been spent on libraries the easier would be to find one and again it would then result into more Carnegie’s. I think that back in the day money should have been spent more on Charity programs that focused on directing the people in to an upward spiral. In today’s times I believe the money should be spent on charities. The charities that help the people that weren’t born in a great situation I am talking about the kids born into 3rd world countries and the children born into the inner cities.
1. I do agree with Carnegie on how the wealthy distribute their money. The first way (giving the money to family) would not be beneficial to the community unless the family is not spoiled (unlike most wealthy families). Giving more money to an already privileged person would almost guarantee the money bring used for them and only them. The money being given to the public or government may not turn out so well either. Unless there is a will written specifically stating where the money should be, you would have no idea where it would be going. The hard earned money could be going to a place you would have never out your money into. The only way to guarantee the money being spent/ given wisely would be to do it yourself. The blog saying, “…the wealthy shouldn’t be extravagant. They should be modest…” is true. People who are fortunate to be wealthy should spend money only on the important things or give it to charity, which would benefit the community as a whole.
2. Money should always be spent wisely, no matter rich or poor. People who are fortunate enough to be wealthy should try and bridge the gap between them and the poor by giving back. Giving back to the community will help everyone, no just themselves. The way Carnegie spent his money, by building libraries, helped everyone in the community with the education it provides. Spending money on anything that would make the community a better place is always a good way to spend money. Being a philanthropist, like Carnegie, will better the community as a whole and make everyone happy. A wealthy person buying something just for himself or herself would only make them happy, and probably only for a short amount of time. Giving back made and can make everyone feel good. Charitable donations and giving back could bridge the gap between the wealthy and poor. It can bring people together and change lives.
1. I do believe the Andrew Carnegies assessment of how to wealthy should distribute their extra wealth is correct. If people have a surplus of money after they have taken care of their family and their own needs they should distribute it to the public for philanthropic work. If the wealthy just keep their money and then pass it on to their children (who are probably spoiled as it is) it is safe to say that they will spend the money frivolously. As a wealthy individual one should follow the path that Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie took. Retire early in life and become a philanthropist and use your wealth for the benefit of others that are less fortunate than yourself. If one was to give their money to a relative they may not use the money for its desired intent. If you want something done right then there is no one better than yourself to do it. Money is no good when spent on self indulgence; rather it is better spent so that others may indulge on things we take for granted such as food and a house to live in. Andrew Carnegie’s philanthropic approach to the distribution of wealth could also bring the gap of living conditions between the rich and the poor together. If wealthy individuals have taken care of themselves they should set the rest of their money in a trust to be used only for a specific task after their passing such as a library or a donation to a university.
2. In order to close the gap between the rich and the poor a few things have to happen. The wealthy upper middle class and upper class individuals should give money to trust funds after they retire that would be used to better the community and to assist the poor. This will also prevent frivolous living which greatly divides the rich and the poor because the more money an individual has the more frivolous on will live. The money that is put in these trusts will not go directly to any one individual but rather it will be used as food stamps, cloths, or even for a rent payment. This will eliminate the poor spending the money on whatever they chose because as Andrew Carnegie said “the rich are better spenders of money than the poor”. This will enable the surplus money to be used in a way that benefits the community. These trusts could also be used for schools, libraries and, other public facilities for the betterment of our community. This is not to say that the rich cannot live a wealthy life style it just means that they should also give back to the community that helped get them to their current financial status. This will immensely improve the quality of life for the less fortunate.
Ben Bejune
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I think that the wealthy should be modest, use the money wisely, and spend it on things that they feel are important. As Carnegie said, spending is easier than earning, and if money is spent rashly, there could be consequences. After fair taxation, I think that people should get the chance to spend their hard earned cash, but I also I believe that giving is better than receiving, and sharing wealth with those less fortunate is very important.
I think that the first option, inherited money, is not the best option because people who dedicate their lives to work to support their families definitely deserve the opportunity to choose how to spend their money. Also the second option, money being left to the public or government, can have both positive and negative effects. The money could go to good use, but could also be carelessly spent. All of three options have their flaws, but I believe that the third option, spending extra money wisely with good purpose, is the best way to distribute wealth.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and poor, money should be spent on bettering the lives on the less fortunate and making the community a better place. Back then, and even today, there are many people living in poverty. I think the majority of money should be spent on education and used to better the living conditions of the people in the country. Today, the extra money, ether donated or collected, could be spent on our infrastructure. For example, many roads and bridges in our country need to be repaired. Unfortunately, most money is being spent carelessly on unnecessary things, including wars. Currently, there is a national debt of around fifteen trillion dollars. This is because of the budget deficit, which is when the government spends more than it takes in. A tax increase on the wealthiest people could have helped then and probably today. The irresponsible spending of money is causing the poverty rate to rise. Money is easier to spend than to earn, and this spending pattern, typical of back then and today, caused and continues to be the reason for the decline of the economy.
I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth as described in “The Gospel of Wealth” by Carnegie himself. Carnegie feels that the best way to fix the gap between the rich and the poor is for the wealthy to distribute their wealth however they wish to, but to do it intelligently. I agree that doing something like giving $10 to a person on the street will only have a temporary effect, if it even has a positive effect at all. Instead, I fell that the wealthy should use their extra cash to “invest” (but I use this term lightly) in the lower class. For example, someone could open up or grant money to a university like Leland Stanford did- this supplies those who have the desire to succeed with the proper opportunity to do so. Large amounts of money should not be locked up in a safe for a “rainy day” because they won’t stimulate the economy as much- with that money, one could construct libraries and museums, conduct medical research, or create more jobs for the lower classes. I also support Carnegie’s disagreement with the other ways wealth should be given out- through inheritance and leaving it out for the government and public. Not all of the offspring of successful men and women are always the best suited for the receiving of the money and much of it should be given away by the parent. I also feel that it’s important that the person who made all of their money has the option on deciding how it is to be donated and when it is given to the public or government for that choice, because after all the wealthy could have worked very hard for what they’ve earned and I feel it should be completely their choice.
In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor back then and today I feel the money should be largely spent and focused on education. Education should be a large priority to be addressed when trying to close the gap between the rich and the poor because with a proper secondary and college education, the American Dream may be possible! However, large tuitions, living fees, etc. can still hold back many students from excelling as much as they had wanted to, and many schools and school districts aren’t able to provide enough support to help a child really get on their feet and receive as good of an education as a more fortunate kid may in another area. Perhaps with a refined school system, the “rags to riches” dream may be a little more possible for all people. With great schools and teachers, kids can be inspired to succeed after their secondary education and help improve society as a whole when they grow up! This leads me to my next point: I feel that another important factor to reaching a balanced society is a strong and large middle class. The middle class can contains some of the people most important in our lives like teachers which our country without them would not be as thriving as could be.
1. I agree with Carnegies idea of how the extra wealth should be distributed because money should not just be left to descendents in the family because they are already living a very comfortable life and that is not a good use of the money he raised, I don’t agree with the reason he thinks that, which is that it would be a waste of his hard earned money that he worked to gain, but because there are other people who could use the money above wealthy family members. The second way seems to have some value to it, helping things the public needs to make society a better place is wise, but Carnegie does make a good point that intentions could be twisted or misunderstood. The chance that some of the money could be used for something good is better than the idea of not trying to help the world for fear of it going to the wrong thing. The last way also has its negative and positive sides because that would start other problems in the world as well. The best way to assure that money is distributed properly is to plan ahead and decide for yourself where the majority of the money is sent. I think that none of the ways are completely good because one person should not be allowed to posses that much money in the first place, but since that it is inevitable that people will, I think the money should be used to help as many people as possible.
2. I believe that gap between the rich and the poor is best addressed and fixed by using the money to help as many people as possible. Why should some people have so much money that they can let it sit in their vaults until they die or get old and give it away. That alone says it is not needed. I always just wish they could just print more money but I know that is impossible, but if the people sitting on billions of dollars would realize there is a better place for helping others and having a wealthy life why can’t they act on it? The gap between rich and poor is a very far distance apart and if it cannot be eliminated it should at least be lessened. The way that money is being used today is not the most affective system but changing the system may produce even more problems. The money should be spent not only helping those in need now but for improving the youth of our country to be better in the long run.
Blog #28 Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth
I agree in Carnegie’s assessment that the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I agree with this first off because for the cases in which the person made the wealth they have themselves and did not inherit it because they earned that money so they should be able to spend it on the things they want. It would not make sense to give your money to the government because then it is not spent the way you want it to. The government could use the extra money they received from you and use it in an idiotic way that could put our economy into more debt. I also agree with Carnegie that they shouldn’t give their children large sums of money in which they would waste the money. If a child were to come into a family with a lot of wealth then they would spend the money on pointless things. They could use the money in other places that would be more beneficial. The parents who earned the money would understand how to use it wisely compared to the children. Thus Carnegie’s explanation of how the wealthy should spend their money makes the most sense.
To address the gaps between the rich and the poor the extra money should be spent on the workers. In most cases the rich are the workers and the boss is the rich one who watches over, but does not do the physical work. The rich or the boss should somehow use their extra wealth and give it back to the poor or the workers. In a boss to worker point the boss could the workers more benefits and a reasonable time off work to keep them happy. In the rich to poor stand point the rich could somehow give money into healthcare so that people who could not as easily afford it have help to get what they need. The rich could also give the poor supplies like food when it is hard to afford. This is how the wealthy could possibly spend their money to address the gap between the rich and poor.
1. I agree with Carnegies view on how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth. I think that he especially right when it comes to inherited wealth. By working all your life and earning a bunch of money and then just giving it to your children when you die, that teaches your kids nothing about hard work. You’re kids will grow up wealthy, live a wealthy life, and treat their kids to the same spoiling that they were shown as kids from you. That is also a huge waste of money because it’s just giving an absurd amount of money to people who probably already have trust funds and they should at least attempt to earn a little bit of their money instead of just being set up with money from the day they are born. Also, I feel that people should spend the money they make during their lifetime because by leaving so much money to their heirs or the government or public, the money may be used is a bad way or not in a way that the maker of the money would have liked. I feel that if someone had enough energy and will to make that much money, then they should have the privilege to spend it in the way that they please. The best way to spend this money is of course to donate it in ways that will benefit society as a whole so not just one person or family can benefit from someone’s wealth, but may people.
2. I think that the money from the rich should have been/or be spent on homeless shelters, hospitals to help with cures for diseases, and schools and libraries. All of these things benefit society and they aren’t just random handouts to anyone, they are handouts to people who want to do something to help themselves or others. Homeless shelters are covens for those with nothing and obviously if they are willing to eat there and live there, then they want something to become of their life and they don’t just want to live on the street. Hospitals are also a great place to donate because there are more diseases in this world than ever and most have no cure. The closer we can get to finding these cures, the better chance our world has. Also, contributing to libraries and schools is always good. These are both places of knowledge and we should all be striving to encourage and build knowledge at all times in our lives. Donations should go to the people/things that need it the most but also the people/things that can benefit our societies, not just a handful of people.
What I believe is that I agree with Carnegie about the wealth distributing their wealth at the later years, because what do 70 and 80 year old people need 100’s of million and billions of dollars. The wealthy in their later years do not need all that wealth instead of having all the money and dying with it would be good to donate the money to the less fortunate and do something good with it, because when you die you can’t take it with you. If I were very wealthy and had everything that I ever wanted I would enjoy it for the first half in my life, but when I become older and begin to reflect on my early life and see what I’ve accomplished, I want to see something good. I want to be remembered by what I did with all my money not about how much money I had.
When it comes to the gap between the rich and the poor, I think that America’s money should be spent on advances that will benefit for both the rich and the poor, I think that the money should be spent on something that would still make the rich money, but also get the poor out of poverty. I think this because if America spends its money on something just to please one category of people, then the others will begin to rebel and strike, but if you spend it on something that is beneficial for everyone then everyone is happy. So in conclusion, I believe that Americas money needs to be spent on something that Is beneficial and good for everyone not just the upper class and in result everyone in the nation will be pleased with the outcome. These are the reasons why I agree with Carnegies Gospel of Wealth, and Why I think Americas money should be sent on something good for everyone.
1. I agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their excess money. Carnegie’s opinion on the matter, as well as his proposed solution, is very insightful. In my opinion, like Carnegie, I think bequeathing one’s estate to their children is simply keeping them to a life in which they have been spoiled. In Carnegie’s opinion, giving one’s children money would be a waste. I, again, agree. If a parent was to work hard to attain wealth then simply leave it to their heir, the heir would have gotten a large sum of money without working for it. Doing as such is selfish: if the child is born into wealth, he or she will never learn how to fend for themselves, let alone contribute toward society. I also share Carnegie’s view on leaving money with the government. It is not unknown that the government often strays from the intent of the deceased. With uncertainty such as this, the blog hits it right on: “in essence, it’s easier to spend money than to make it.” Carnegie’s third way to bridge the gap between the rich and poor is an obvious one—but the advice it offers isn’t often taken to heed by society. The extravagance of the wealthy today can be seen regularly. If the upper class too Carnegie’s advice, maybe the class gap wouldn’t be quite as wide.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and poor, our money should be spent mostly on education. Although there are exceptions, it’s nearly impossible to be successful without a decent education. If all the schools in America were on even footing, then success might be much easier to come by, thus bridging the gap between the classes. In addition, I think that money should be donated to causes that improve the case of both the rich and poor. If our cities are improved as well, then the ‘nice’ and ‘bad’ part of town might not end up being so different.
Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
As stated, Carnegie believed the wealthy should use their wealth however they choose, but to do it wisely. I firmly agree with this point because I don’t believe that just because someone has worked hard for wealth, they should have to give away their money to an institution that will facilitate the distribution of their money in a way they disagree with. Carnegie gives several examples of this happening in options one and two. The wealthy person should be able to control it themselves even if that involves touching on points one and two. As long as the person sees it right, they should have ultimate freedom with their money, because freedom is the principal this nation is based upon. As long as this is followed through, the wealthy will have the right to distribute the wealth the way he/she believes it should be done, or the way it will be most beneficial. It is of course their money, and if the sole purpose of making money were to spend it on what you want, it would be ridiculous to restrict the ones with the most money from doing so.
**************************************************************************2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
First off, I believe that the rich should be able to do what they please with the money as sated before- whether it is distributing the money to the public or not. Though this is true, if I was a multi billion-dollar high roller, I would have spent the money on creating jobs, establishing business, and offering opportunities for the common man without directly giving them my wealth. If a person is given wealth from begging, or waiting, they develop a sense of entitlement. If they are given an opportunity to work hard (with reasonable terms), they will have a greater chance to use their money wisely. Both sides will benefit; the high wealth as they are given manpower and workforce to develop goods, and the lower and middle classes will receive money. Even if they use it for the wrong purpose, at least one side will benefit, which would not be the case if the money were just handed out. The common man could do wrong with the money, yet the affluent person would receive nothing in return. Creating jobs with the extra wealth would have a greater link to the common good over other options.
J. W. Couger 3rd hour
1.) I agree with Carnegie that the rich shouldn’t simply give away their money to as many poor people they can because the more poor there are, the less each will receive. Like you said, people will get amounts that will be sufficient for their living for maybe a couple months. The amount they get won’t be enough to get them started on a better life; just enough to buy some necessities such as food and clothes. And there’s no guarantee that they’d spend that money on things that they would benefit from. For example, if money was given to someone who was in poverty because he was a drug addict who ruined his life, how would we know that he wouldn’t just buy more drugs with it? But just because it’s not a smart idea for the rich to give their money to a lot of poor people, doesn’t mean it’s a smart idea for them to spend their money on useless materialistic things just because they can afford them.
2.) Obviously, even if the government has control over the money, they can’t control each person’s decisions. In order to bridge the gap between the rich and poor, the rich shouldn’t have and shouldn’t be able to earn that much money. It’s understandable that they work hard for their money, but some things that are sold by them don’t have to be that expensive. There should be sort of a medium; reasonable prices that are affordable by the average American. And most people that buy these products probably see it as something of high value, but not as a necessity. If the government had control of all of the money, there wouldn’t be as big of a gap between the rich and poor. They could overlook how much Americans spend and the prices that companies are putting on their products.
Blog #28- Carnegie’s “Gospel of Wealth”
1. I do agree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth with the working class. I agree with Carnegie because do I believe in giving back (charity) I also believe that while the rich have been blessed with all of their wealth, some on the other hand haven’t been as blessed. So, it is only right to help those who are not as fortunate as you are. I believe that you should help as much as financially can without putting your family in danger whether you give a homeless person some change or help build a school/library. Those that are the most modest about their wealth deserve the most respect. But, those who spend all of their money loosely on unnecessary items should be frowned upon. Don’t get me wrong; it’s that person’s decision with what he/she chooses to do with his/her wealth; I just don’t think that spending all of your money on wasteful items will truly benefit anyone, including yourself.
2. I believe that in order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor back then and even today the money should’ve been spent on education. I believe that everyone deserves an education, and it just isn’t fair if someone cannot obtain an education because of their financial status. If more rich people back then had donated their money towards education like Andrew Carnegie had then so much more people would’ve had the opportunity to become successful, which would have helped the economy that much more. Imagine how many more rich men this country would have had if the same amount of money had been spent on education as it was on other completely unnecessary items rich people used to purchase just to be flashy and show the others that they were more important and better than them. The sad part is that we still have this problem today, in 2011. We have a large low-class population, slightly lower middle-class, and barely anyone fits into the high-class category. If everyone had the opportunity to receive an education no one would be better than anyone else, we would all be considered the same. Some, of course would be smarter than others but that is in your own control.
1. Do you agree or disagree with Carnegie’s assessment of how the wealthy should distribute their extra wealth? Why or why not?
I agree with Carnegie, I think the wealthy should spend their money the way they want to, while also giving a little back. I think it shows your character if you give back or don’t give back. If you do give back it shows that you have good character, it shows that you are caring, and good hearted. If you don’t give back it shows then it shows that you have a bad character it also shows that you are selfish, and cold hearted. You should still spend your money the way you want while giving a little back. I think that the children of wealthy children should inherited enough money to live comfortably but not enough to live like luxury. For the second way some money should go to the government but only a small percentage, because the government gets enough money from everybody else. For the third part people who have a lot of money should give at the very least 10% of their wealth away if they are still taking in income, if they are not then they should give away 5%.
2. In order to address the gaps between the rich and the poor, back then and even today, what should the money have been (and should be) spent on? Explain why.
The extra money should go to organizations and programs trying to improve the lives of working class people. The money should also go to people in need unemployment is up, and people need money that they don’t have. Also if you give back to people it comes back to you. For a example if you donate money to a scholarship fund, and allow a kid to go to college, he might become richer then you, and return the favor. When giving to certain charities and organizations you should give to organizations that are struggling more than organizations that aren’t struggling as much. Back then the money should have been used to help people just starting off. It could have gone to building houses for people instead of people building their own houses. They money could have maybe gone to medical research to improve medical treatments back then.
Eric Scott 4th hour