They were the one"tms with the most money therefore, they had it in their hands to change the laborers wages, benefits and working hours.
Since the wealthy were just into getting wealthier, only a select few showed concern to the problems their workers faced outside their organizations. The stewards only recognized wages as their main obligation to the workers, and to give them their wages in a timely manner was sufficient. That is evident from Kirby, another character in the novel and the son of the mill owner ""I wash my hand of all social problems, --slavery, caste, white or black. My duty to my operatives has a narrow limit, -- the pay-hour on Saturday night. Out-side of that, if they cut korl, or cut each other"tms throats, (the more popular amusement of the two,) I am not responsible." (Davis 55). Although Kirby"tms claim is legitimate from his point of view, Brownson argues that the system of labor at a wage used is the cause of the social problems at his time. The stewards set the wage to their own benefit so they can grow richer (Brownson 213).
Andrew Carnegie in The Gospel of wealth supports the notion of striving to acquire more wealth by des
| |
 |
|
 |
| |
 |
 |
| |
 |
 |
Diversity
... with the National Restaurant Association and American Hotel ampampMotel ... owns, manages or franchises 1,900 hotels, resorts ... Hilton, and through the stewardship of his ... (5959 24
|
| | |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
One of the solutions to ease the problems proposed by Brownson seems is the concept of inheritance tax or death tax. He seems to imply a religious reform in that idea. After all, Jesus Christ was quoted to have said "Spend your wealth in the cause of the lord" Carnegie certainly encouraged the wealthy to spend their money for the welfare of the society. It is odd that he did not mention the idea of inheritance tax in his gospel given that he favored the abolishment of wealth rather then poverty. The idea of taxing the living on income or property is an accepted one; the issue of setting an inheritance tax creates many arguments of personal freedom. Insuring the equality of opportunity for all is virtually impossible.
It is true that the conditions of the laboring class were better than their counterparts in other countries (Brownson 217), but that does not justify the fact that people who have done the majority of the work, be it low skilled or high skilled, be omitted from their true benefits. It was possible for them to live better. The industry and the economy to this very day are still reaping the benefits of those poor people who made it all possible through their hard work and labor. They should have been looked at more as equal human beings more than just "hands". They would have all shared this wealth if the stewards have properly administered it. Maybe we needed more stewards of the like of Carnegie"tms. At last, it is the bad fruits of Industrialization together with capitol and the lack of pro
1023
4 
24
1023 
4 
