Discussion Topic
Businessmen Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan, and John D. Rockefeller led the rapid industrialization of the U.S. economy in the late-nineteenth century, and each amassed great personal fortunes in the process. For example, Morgan's U.S. Steel Corporation was the first billion-dollar industry, valued at $1.4 billion in 1901.
In stark contrast, the average worker during this era labored in less than ideal conditions for meager wages. At the turn of the century, the average hourly wage was 21.6 cents, and the average annual earnings were just $490. Most worked about 60 hours a week on average. Steelworkers commonly worked 12-hour shifts, often 7 days a week.
Enter this discussion at least twice, and address some of the following questions:
- What do you think of the "survival of the fittest" business practices of early business leaders? Do you think these practices were ethical? Were they necessary or unavoidable?
- Did the success of men like Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller benefit the country as a whole, or were benefits limited to certain groups of people?
- Clearly there were social, economic, and political consequences of the business practices of these late-nineteenth century industrialists. Is there a balance between the negative and the positive effects of their actions? Or does one outweigh the other?
- Some people call these businessmen "robber barons;" others think of them as important leaders and entrepreneurs. Which position do you agree with? Why?
Required Reading
Before you enter the discussion, be sure to read the related pages on nineteenth century entrepreneurs, workers and working conditions in your textbook. If you're using Tindall and Shi, see:
| 8th Edition | 7th Edition | 6th Edition | 5th Edition |
| Chapter 20, pages 796-821 | Chapter 20, pages 753-777 | Chapter 20, pages 812-840 | Chapter 20, pages 898-926 |
Scoring
This discussion is worth a maximum of 15 points. You'll get 10 points for your first post. Your instructor will give you another 5 points if you post a follow-up comment or question that furthers the discussion.
Original:
ReplyDeleteI believe the survival of the fittest of business practices of early business leaders were not fair, and favored monopolies and didn't give competition to new business. It allowed businesses such as Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller to be the only producers of raw materials. But since during this time few laws were passed to ensure competition it was unavoidable for huge monopolies to control certain raw materials. Success from people such as Carnegie, Morgan and Rockefeller did provide advancements for the country but the benefits were only for a certain group of people who received the wealth. I believe the actions of the businesses during industrialist balanced because although they did have major monopolies they allow for more advancements and stimulate economic growth. They are leaders and entrepreneurs they allow for business to grow and allow for new inventions, more jobs, and even ideals.
Original:
ReplyDeleteI think the “survival of the fittest” business practices of early business leaders were completely unfair because leaders such as Rockefeller and Morgan created monopolies and ran numerous small business owners out of business. I also think their practice of Social Darwinism was unethical and avoidable. It was unethical because many of those small business owners were depended on their store as their only source of income. The situation was avoidable because it was not necessary to run numerous small companies out of business. I think these leaders took a greedy approach when it came to their business. I also think of the businessmen as “robber barons” because they created monopolies and were led by greed. However, I am extremely impressed by how many of them such as Rockefeller, started their multimillion dollar companies.
Original:
ReplyDeleteI beleive that the success of men like Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller benefited the country as a whole because while their tactics may have pushed struggling businesses and other businesses out of business, in the end the philanthropy of these men only benefited areas of education such as universities and libraries, medicine, and social places like halls for meetings and concerts and church buildings. While their methods to achieve their wealth may have been ruthless, they are admired for their philanthropic actions that really helped the country during times of need.
To Shevana:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you in the aspect that these businessmen did what they had to do in order to build their businesses. While it may be seen as unethical, emotions have no place in business. Business practices require cold, logical thinking and cannot be modified by emotions. While I agree that business practices should be ethical and moral, they should not be completely modified to the point where those practices do not result in wealth.
The buisness practice of social darwinism or survival of the fittest was a practice that allowed America to become the most successful industrialized nation in the world. Not only did America become the most prosperous nation in the world, but its people were the wealthiest as well, all of its people. Even the factory workers were better off then workers in other countries. Through this new survival of the fittest, America became the most successful country in the world.
ReplyDeleteEveryone: Although the workgin conditions were supposedly poor and pay low, Americans were better off then any other country in the world, everyone had jobs and was making money. This is how cars, radios, TV's were invented. It was one of the most prosperpous times in the United States history.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although the business practices of the late-nineteenth century had social and economic consequences, they were balanced out in part by the advancements that also came with these practices. While many small businesses were thrown out of business and monopolies formed, technological advancements such as cars and televisions were created. As well, people such as Andrew Carnegie were philanthropists, and donated much of their wealth to worthy causes, such as education and medical studies.
ReplyDeleteI don't necessarily believe that the "survival of the fittest" business practices were necessarily ethical or necessary, they were unavoidable. Since the United States had never dealt with corporations before, they had little way of knowing that these monopolies would form, or how to deal with them.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Social Darwinism which is the survival of the fittest was and is a practice that has transformed our Nation to be successful financially. Although individuals like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Morgan created monopolies which harmed small businesses, these monopolies benefitted our economy greatly through industrialization. Not only did they benefit our Nation economically but these men were also Philanthropists. They gave to education and the arts and their contributions are still recognized today in bulidings such as Carnegie Hall, Rockefeller Center and Banks.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that the positives outweigh the negatives when referring to the social, economic and political consequences of the business practices of the late nineteenth century industrialists. Although working conditions may not have been seen as good and many small businesses were not preserved, overall these businesses benefitted our economy greatly. With these businesses came the advancement of industrialization and benfits for the arts and education as well.
ReplyDeleteOriginal:
ReplyDeleteThe success of men like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan benefited the country as a whole more than a certain group of people. Because of the work these men placed into their business, various types of items were invented and improved. Also these men gave generous donations to various charities in order to further education, medicine, etc. Although these men made enormous contributions to charities and universities, their tactics and method in achieving such wealth should not be outweighed by their contributions.
Andrew Carnegie promoted a philosophy based on the work of Charles Darwin, Social Darwinism. Using the theory of evolution (survival of the fittest) as an analogy, Carnegie, in particular, argued that in business (represented as a nature), unrestricted competition was the only way to allow the "fittest to survive." This make shift analogy, dubious at best, lacked a consistency back by Carnegie. As a business man he argued against the regulation provided for by the government, however, he supported a various types of government assistance to business, from tax brakes to tariffs.
ReplyDeleteWhile similar men, Rockefeller and Morgan, did reap vast benefits, the country did as well. These three power houses drove the American economy, created a plethora of jobs, and provided the country with security.
I completely agree with Jasbir. If these businessmen did not take the actions that they did their businesses would not have thrived in the way that they did, thus presenting our economy with detrimental effects. As Jasbir said, there is no place for emotion in business.
ReplyDeleteThe term survival of the fittest in business was completely unfair because it did run all small businesses out of their business. It did indeed fit the term well, but at the time strategies were needed to run a business and Morgan and Rockefeller had business skills that people would die for. They ran their monopolies under their thumb with strong control and other business owners did not have the skill or will power to compete with these large monopolies
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Alex when she said that they did create numerous jobs for many americans, jobs that would have been numbered with small companies.
ReplyDeleteTo Shinece: I do believe survival of the fittest was unfair it didn't allow small business to thrive. It made large companies have complete monopoly over raw materials. I agree with your statement 100%
ReplyDeleteThe success of men like Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller benefited the country as a whole. They were innovative businessmen who took risks and did what was necessary to make a profit and improve their industry. Without their work, U.S. citizens would have been waiting a very long time for the U.S. government to build up American manufacturing and transportation methods. These businessmen had enormous wealth at their disposal that the U.S. government would never have. They used that wealth to update and modernize their industry in pursuit of the lowest price possible. While it's true that their success may have been a result of being born at the right time and having particular ancestry, the men made the business decisions themselves. They saw what the market needed and they took action.
ReplyDeleteTo: Jasbir
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about the nation as a whole benefitting from the actions of the captains of industry. While their tactics may have pushed struggling businesses and other businesses out of business, in the end they did give back. They are notable and record setting philanthropists who have left a lagacy of economics and goodwill behind after their passings.