Poverty, hunger, illness, and lack of shelter, these are things that plague a majority of the people of the world and yet most of us are not even aware of it. According to Peter Singer, a professor of bioethics, he believes that prosperous people should donate all of the money not needed for the basic requirements of life to organizations meant to help those less fortunate. Though a good idea in theory, there are two sides to it, both positive and negative. By donating all of the money we don’t need to survive we will in turn be helping others survive, thus preserving our way of life and bettering someone else’s. By only donating money that we spend on things not necessary to survive we are still able to live a life that is comfortable and the idea of rich and poor people can be thrown away.
We can simply learn a trade, get some college, and even stay longer with our long term employer so that we can earn livable wages. This may sound mean, O.K. rather harsh; but I don't have a lot of pity for the majority of adults making minimum wage, because most of them made that choice to not better themselves. It’s very easy to not try and stay in that one place of employment. Because many want to work, have family, but no degree; a lot of businesses open their doors when they can monetarily!
The third is the individual spending their wealth throughout their life for the common good. The first and second mode of bestowing wealth is looked down upon by Carnegie. Within his explanation it is possible to conclude that Carnegie is in favor of inheritance taxes. He states, “Of all forms of taxation this seems wisest.” The first mode is only acceptable if a fair amount of income is provided to the family. However, leaving all the wealth may do more harm than good for the society.
Carnegie’s argument is found to be valid because he thought it was important for wealthy men to set an example to others by living a modest life. He believed the wealthy should use their money to benefit the public in ways that would last for many years instead of using it all on personal indulgences for oneself or their family. He did not believe in giving to charities but to “help those who will help themselves; to provide part of the means by which those who desire to improve may do so; to give those who desire to rise the aids by which they may rise; to assist, but rarely or never to do all” (p400,401). When this is done, a man will live on forever after his death by the public things he left when he died. Carnegie is remembered for building 2,509 public libraries and Carnegie Hall in New York.
Factory work had some disadvantages though, for one people began to lose the feeling of self satisfaction from creating things since they often only a part process. Since the factories reduced the demand for the more expensive artisan made goods there were less skilled laborers and goods became more uniform. The factories also spawned the creation of labor unions which began exerting influence over the government, the unions started small in this era, but eventually gained power. The nature of work changed considerably during the gilded and progressive era, things such as wage labor, unions, and leisure time which had not really existed before sprung up and are still present more than 100 years labor, a sign of their
I also see further than the pure monetary aspect, and think that if we’ve discovered a valid way to keep the chronically homeless stable and off the street it also deserves some attention. The article put an emphasis on how many of these men worked very well within a strict system, but hadn’t mastered complete independence. The cons weigh equally heavily. What message does this send – that the less we try, the more we gain? And who is to be deemed so unfit that they deserve these amenities?
How about making great increases on taxes for the rich? Wouldn’t that reduce the income from their industries and businesses as well as making it hard for them to maintain all their employees? It’s interesting how the big earners are portrayed as being extravagant, spending on luxurious goods while the middle class who have foreclosures and bankruptcy are only portrayed as caring about their children to go to good schools. Oh! How
Poor people encourage other not poor people to better than them and kind of set an example of what you don't want to be There are millions of dollars that are out there to have but some people need to just get up and find it for example most poor people start to give up and they believe that there is nothing else to do but to be poor and and they can never have money again which is not true they can but they have to make an effort to go out there and get that money. Poor people need to be more self determined to make something of themselves and not be
Their low wages increase employers’ profits and lower consumers’ costs.” (St. John). Illegal immigrants do work a lot of the jobs the rest of this country does not care to do, and in that way yes it is beneficial. But those jobs only call for so many people, what is to be done with all the rest that come here? This is where the eliminating caps per-country for green cards could really come in
For example, some people from Mexico or other poor countries often choose any kind of work, especially one that pays a minimum wage rate. Some companies like to use these people because “not only they fill the less desired jobs that need to be completed, all wage rates will come down due to the millions of new resources in the workforce” (“Should a path to U.S. citizenship for illegal immigrants be implemented, granting amnesty & American citizenship to illegal after various requirements are fulfilled?” ¶3). However, some people argue that most of illegal worker do not pay enough taxes that could affect the economy of the whole country. In fact, the high tuition of children and low-paying job give more stresses to illegal immigration. Not only two of these, rent, food supplies, and transportation also can bring hardship to their life.