The Argument Of George Pullman's Model Town

Between historian A and B, historian A had the more realistic viewpoint. Historian A has the argument of how George Pullman only created his “model town” so he could make money and control his employees better. He goes on to say how Pullman was constantly buying things like water and natural gas, but then selling them way past their actual worth. He even rented out out the towns apartments for 15% - 20% higher than the neighboring towns. The town was not nearly worth what the townsfolk were paying too. The streets were a mess, there was a scarce number of water fountains, and the apartments were extremely trashy. The apartments were extremely crowded (with families needing to go through other apartments just to get to their own), one toilet was shared by two families,

If you worked for Pullman and did not live in his town, chances are you would get laid off first during bad times. Then if you lived in the town, you would have your rents deducted from your paychecks. According to Historian A’s accurate article, Pullmans town was an awful place to live. Although to historian B, it was contrary. Historian B rebuttals historians A’s claims and tries to make it seem as if Pullman was not a cruel and greedy man. They go on and say how Pullman was not making a large profit on the town, but a measly $30.86 per month. Then how Pullman sold the necessities to the townsfolk at the same rate as other country towns. They say how the apartments were not slums, but even better living conditions than other towns could provide. Hence why the “small” higher price. They were modern brick buildings, with bright beds of flowers, green velvety lawns, with parks, and a beautiful garden landscape. However, what really shows that historian A had a better and more accurate argument than historian B was their