It is said that wealth, in all its forms, can never be distributed in such a way as to effectively and efficiently do the greatest good for human society. The rich may forever be greedy, and the poor may forever struggle to climb a ladder which few can conquer. It is in addressing this accusation of humanity that Andrew Carnegie dictates a solution. Some of the population believe it a wise idea to redistribute wealth evenly as soon as possible; in doing so, the opportunities of every person change. Such a radical change is unrealistc and, in this day, unattainable; “our duty,” Carnegie writes, “is with what is practicable now; with the next step possible in our day and generation” (Carnegie, 6). Instead, he suggests an approach entirely …show more content…
Although he writes about the good that comes to a society from knowledge, nature, and art, the needs of the people seem to be an afterthought. While he claims that “great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes… are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the corse of many years in trifling amounts,” he does not address the fact that there are many people who are homeless, underfed, and in dire need of money in our society as well as those who can afford the basics of life (Carnegie, 12). It has been proven that it is incredibly hard (although certainly not impossible) for those born into a low-income family to truly thrive in their adult life. Although “ladders upon which the aspiring can rise—parks… works of art… and public institutions of various kinds” are helpful, Carnegie may not account for the sheer number of those in need. Already, homeless shelters overflow and public aid is being decreased. Art and the like are necessary for a society to evolve, but the needs of the people should not be sacrificed when there are millions of dollars funding what is, in the end, solely meant to