Carnegie Steel undoubtedly moved the steel industry, and industirilization itself in the correct direction. However this brought me to wonder would industrilization have done better if Carnegie had, had less of precense in the Steel industry.
.
The first argument one could make is that Carnegie steel was capable of providing very discounted prices because of how large they were. Most companies could not compete with the sales price of Carnegie Steel which left them two options, go out of business or put their company under the Carnegie trust. This meant that Carnegie Steel pretty much had a monopoly on the industry. Although the companies that were buying from Carnegie enjoyied the lower prices, they also hurt other industries. For example Carnegie would pay the railroads to not ship other companies products. Because of this the railroad lost customers. Carnegie payed a lot less to keep other companies off the railroad then the companies would have payed to be on the railroad. It may seem logical that the railroad should just blow off Carnegie and transport other companies steel, but beacuse Carnegie Steel was so big and powerfull they could not do this.
On the other hand it can be argued that Industrilization would not have moved as fast as it did with out Carnegie Steel Company. It bought many of the companies togeather which allowed them to all progress at the same speed and in the same way. Also the unison of the Steel companies opened more jobs. With more jobs comes more money which boosts the contries economy. Although more jobs were created the jobs also became less specialized which means that the people are more expendable.
Did Carnegie Steel Company help of hurt the industry?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carnegie/sfeature/mf_flames.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnegie_Steel_Company
I don't understand why the railroad companies wouldn't just blow off carnegie if they would get more money from transporting other companies steel. I think Carnegie was a smart, but sleazy businessman, because its not cool to whip out the competitors like that but it was the right choice from a business standpoint. Although he created for jobs, the people were easy to replace so it was harmful to the workers because they could be fired at any time.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if Carnegie didn't do it, someone else would. In this time, with so few regulations and so many pro-business legislatures and presidents (with some Populist exceptions) it was a kill or be killed field. Today, we have the Federal Antitrust as well as many worker safety net laws. Back then, none of these existed so if not Carnegie, then it would have been someone else. I believe that while Carnegie had some not so moral decisions, he made the same ones as any other businessman would at the time.
ReplyDeleteIf anything, at least Carnegie flooded back a lot of his profits back into the nation as opposed to many both at the time and today.
When you say he "flooded back his profits," do you mean trickle-down economics or his own personal charity?
DeleteI agree with the idea that it was either a "kill or be killed" field at this time. Although railroad companies could just get more money transporting other companies steel, it is difficult to be the only company that isn't part of the trust. It is less about making the money but about how much external pressure is enforced on the railroad companies when they are the only ones that are not part of the trust. With the amount of money Carnegie had, in his hands was also a great deal of power. However, with this power Carnegie held, could he have operated his business in a more equal manner while also getting the same amount of money? In other words, is there an alternative that is less anti-competitive?
ReplyDeleteIt is important to recognize also the ruthless nature of the expansion of Carnegie's factories. They were full of chaos, noise, and danger. Indeed, horrible injuries occurred quite often, and wives and children came to dread the whistle that meant someone had been injured. Cheap steel meant that workers not only had lower wages and less job security, but also that they lost control over their own labor.
ReplyDelete