What themes stood out most to you in the assigned readings and lecture this week? What questions did the lectures and readings raise for you? Please post your responses in the comment section below.
A major concept of this week's readings and lecture was the formula for a profitable business, which was to keep costs down. As Livesay stated, one needed to "learn the costs and reduce them as much as possible; then lower prices to lure a greater volume of business," (39). A reason that Scott, Thomson, and Carnegie were successful corporate leaders was because they studied their data to identify how to keep costs down. A question I had was whether vertical integration or horizontal integration is a more effective way of organizing a corporation?
What really stood out to me this week was the idea that the new, "modern" corporation blossomed out of not just advancements in technology, but by several factors. Groups of highly intelligent people, such as Carnegie and Vanderbilt, combined with the assistance of government at the local and national level allowed for these corporations to grow at unprecedented rates. My question is how was the United States able to control or manage the monopolistic practices that emerged with the growth of horizontal and vertical integration?
The thing that stood out to me the most this week was technology's large impact on the way business is done. Things like the assembly lines and (later) standardized parts allowed businesses to drastically lower their prices, and made goods more accessible to everyone. This caused businesses to grow and grow until they reached the critical mass of US Steel and Standard Oil. One question that I had was whether, accounting for things like worker safety and public health, the industrial revolution and its wide reaching effects were overall positive things for society?
What stood out the most to me this week were the methods and ideas Carnegie used to create a corporation that would serve as a model for modern corporations today. From running an efficient and cost effective bureaucracy to vertical integration Carnegie exemplifies the ideal corporate organizer. The one question I had was how would Carnegie’s conflicting beliefs regarding the rights of labor affect his decisions towards unions and labor strikes?
The theme that stood out to me the most from this week’s lecture was the how the United States became industrialized. There were so many different ingredients that came together that resulted in the rapid and successful industrialization of the United States. The way the government was designed to perfectly assist the free market while letting it reign was fascinating, because many countries at the time did not have that. Their rich environment was now being used in a brand new way that hadn’t been seen before. This allowed for the rise of many talented people. The amazing thing about them was the fact that they were pioneers; these things had never been done before and yet they were able to do them so well. All of these factors led America to be a great industrial nation, and they are all things that shaped society today.
One of the largest topics of this aspect of history, and even broader, maybe the most important in all history, is the issue of labor. This period saw intensely rapid change in the way that labor is carried out (Industrial Revolution), and also the structures that were created to implement/ organize/ regulate labor. In addition to the new corporations and their need for new unskilled workers, organizations began to arise that dealt with protecting the labor forces. Thus began the intense debate on how the government should regulate labor.
The idea that stood out to me the most was how business expansion impacted the USA. For example, how rapidly the steel industry boomed. Due to a mix of high demand and the ability of companies to produce steel at high levels the expansion of America was astronomically greater than any point before. One of the results was the development of railroads, such as the Transcontinental, which led to people establishing towns around them, which starts the endless chain of development. One of the questions I have is how would the USA be different if big business had risen differently?
One theme that stood out to me this week was the link between technological adoption and economic success. Carnegie’s willingness to adopt new technologies like the Bessemer Process, and then his active procurement and development of technologies like the Open Furnace played a major role in his success. Another theme that stood out to me was the rise of horizontal and vertical integration and it’s role in the rise of the corporation. It raised the question of why such forms of integration only developed in the late 19th century and whether the economy would’ve changed so dramatically without individuals like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and other industrial titans?
What fascinated me this week was the creation of the bureaucracy. Before, industries had remained relatively small, and worked in concentrated areas. But with the popularization of railroads, larger organizations with many divisions became necessary in order for the railroad companies to function. They had too far of distances to cover and too many people involved daily to have one person control everything, so specific jobs were distributed to intelligent, ready to work employees that knew how to handle their individual tasks and how to perform them well.
During today's lecture, I am amazed by how much Andrew Carnegie knew about the WHOLE steel industry. From bottom to the top, he knew every step and found ways to keep the cost to minimum. I kind of feel that he was born at the right time and got into the right places from early on. Everything he did, from the mill to telegraphy, to railroad operation and to steel industry, all seemed to connect and contribute to his career at the end. There is definitely hard work, willingness to learn and a keen sense for opportunity, but I also think that he made an era, and an era made him.
I thought it was very interesting how Andrew Carnegie gained the knowledge that helped him establish such a profitable steel empire from his past personal experiences, such as his father’s reaction to the industrialization in Scotland and his work with telegraphs. This shows that he was not only book smart, but he was clever and used everything available to him to his advantage, thus allowing him to be successful even with very modest beginnings. My question is what government did, if anything, to control the spread and monopolistic practices of big businesses such as Carnegie’s?
The theme that stood out to me was the rise of industrialization. The other week we talked about the idea that abundance has defined American character and it was interesting to develop that thought and show it’s connection to the rise of industry. Rich environment, lots of land, and many rivers were just some ingredients that made up industrialization.The government’s new role of facilitating commerce through internal improvements such as roads, canals, and bridges stuck out to me. I just found it neat that we used the thing that is singular to the US- our environmental richness- to accelerate the nation’s industrial advance, paving the way for corporations and other new concepts that contribute to who we are today.
One theme that particularly stood out for me this week was the shift in popularity of small industry in favour of larger bureaucratic organisations. It struck me that this also allowed a similar transition in the fabrication of products, from small scale artisan production to mass manufacturing, with tasks divided into manageable repetitive parts which accommodated intense labour of unskilled workers. Furthermore, all these factors contributed to efficiency and the maintenance of low costs, two of Carnegie’s main principles.
One theme that stood out to me this week was labor. I like labor as a theme because it is one that gets discussed in every history class... labor is important to every country, every time period and every historical viewpoint. In the material covered this week specifically, I was very interested by how we are starting to see and understand the bureaucracy behind the labor conditions that are arising and will soon have workers demanding reform. An example of the bureaucracy at work: Carnegie was a businessman intent on driving prices down, his business savvy (and knowledge of the field he was in) directly lead to his use of inexpensive labor.
The theme/idea that stood out to me this week was the relationship between technology and the growth of large organizations. Andrew Carnegie was the perfect example, he studied the business model and bureaucracy, and learned how to game the system. However, his large scale success and his legacy as the embodiment of the modern corporation were all dependent on the rise of technology and the role it played in allowing him to grow his company. The rise of technology directly ties into horizontal and vertical integration, allowing for larger and larger enterprises, and helped Carnegie keep wages low. My question is, at what point did the monopolizing power of modern corporations begin to adversely affect the market and workers as a whole?
I thought the most interesting concept from this week's reading was the almost perfectly set-up contrast between the beliefs of Andrew Carnegie and his father, Will Carnegie. His father, raised a firm believer in the medieval system of artisan labor, resented the budding technology in his time period that his son, interestingly enough, would master to the point of making unheard sums of money. Their personal views represent an interesting microcosm of the transitional nature of the time period itself. My main question from the lectures was how was Carnegie able to minimize his costs while also investing heavily in R&D to create "the best possible product?" It seems it would be difficult to do both at the same time.
What stood out to me was the process that led to the Industrial Revolution. After being a mostly agriculture economy until 1865, industry quickly began to dominate the economy. This was no accident since America had an abundance of resources just waiting to be utilized. Once industrial leaders such as Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller came about and the government began aiding business, the corporation phenomenon began. My biggest question is why did the Industrial Revolution not occur until 1865?
The theme that stood out to me most was the idea of opportunity. During this time especially, the United States was seen as the land of opportunity and that is why many immigrated to the States from European countries. The opportunity seen was the possibility of getting a job and having a sustainable life, but Carnegie took opportunity to the next level. In every job he held, he saw the potential to learn more about business, so he could eventually hold these high power positions and succeed. I found that to be extremely interesting, how much drive Carnegie had to succeed and become one of the most powerful men in the world. A question I had from the lecture was how did the federal government not step in when these corporations were creating towns and taking control of the politics in it as well?
There have been a lot of comments about modern corporations, industrialization, and timelessness of labor. All good points. One element from these aspects that I would like to know more about is this: how did Carnegie customize his business procedures to fit certain areas of the country, varying economic "climates" such as unpopulated Midwest, rural South, urban Northeast, etc... These areas used Carnegie's products in different ways - there were fewer skyscrapers or factories built in Alabama or Georgia - so I'm wondering how he customized his business to fit these areas? This is certainly a small question, but I would be interested to see how these regions influenced his pricing, production methods, etc...
I thought that it was interesting how the concept of industrialization and the changes that it brought into the workforce was met with opposition in certain parts of the world, particularly Scotland, with the Luddites. It is interesting how the revolution was able to bring so many technical advances in a relatively short amount of time. I am curious as to why a movement similar to the Luddites was never present in the United States, as well as how the US was able to assimilate to the new industrial culture so easily.
I would like to step beyond just Carnegie for the primary theme I will address, and shift to the overall economic landscape of the United States following the civil war. The fact that titans of industry such as Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, etc. could emerge is less of a product of their own genius, and more entrenched in the vast economic changes occurring in the later part of the 19th century. Although these individuals dominated the system, it was the rapid economic growth and infrastructure construction coupled with the emergence of the corporation which allowed these massive entities to form. Additionally, this is the beginning of true large scale stock holding (although wall street had existed as a securities exchange before this, it grew to resemble its modern counterpart in this era) which allowed this companies to raise capital on unprecedented levels, while involving the general public. Overall, the primary theme I took away from these readings is not about the individuals that created these companies, but that new legislation and economic factors ultimately allowed these companies to exist. The only questions I have about this subject, and something that I find very interesting, is what happened to all of these massive monopolistic corporations once the government started regulating industry?
A major concept of this week's readings and lecture was the formula for a profitable business, which was to keep costs down. As Livesay stated, one needed to "learn the costs and reduce them as much as possible; then lower prices to lure a greater volume of business," (39). A reason that Scott, Thomson, and Carnegie were successful corporate leaders was because they studied their data to identify how to keep costs down. A question I had was whether vertical integration or horizontal integration is a more effective way of organizing a corporation?
ReplyDeleteWhat really stood out to me this week was the idea that the new, "modern" corporation blossomed out of not just advancements in technology, but by several factors. Groups of highly intelligent people, such as Carnegie and Vanderbilt, combined with the assistance of government at the local and national level allowed for these corporations to grow at unprecedented rates. My question is how was the United States able to control or manage the monopolistic practices that emerged with the growth of horizontal and vertical integration?
ReplyDeleteThe thing that stood out to me the most this week was technology's large impact on the way business is done. Things like the assembly lines and (later) standardized parts allowed businesses to drastically lower their prices, and made goods more accessible to everyone. This caused businesses to grow and grow until they reached the critical mass of US Steel and Standard Oil. One question that I had was whether, accounting for things like worker safety and public health, the industrial revolution and its wide reaching effects were overall positive things for society?
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out the most to me this week were the methods and ideas Carnegie used to create a corporation that would serve as a model for modern corporations today. From running an efficient and cost effective bureaucracy to vertical integration Carnegie exemplifies the ideal corporate organizer. The one question I had was how would Carnegie’s conflicting beliefs regarding the rights of labor affect his decisions towards unions and labor strikes?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me the most from this week’s lecture was the how the United States became industrialized. There were so many different ingredients that came together that resulted in the rapid and successful industrialization of the United States. The way the government was designed to perfectly assist the free market while letting it reign was fascinating, because many countries at the time did not have that. Their rich environment was now being used in a brand new way that hadn’t been seen before. This allowed for the rise of many talented people. The amazing thing about them was the fact that they were pioneers; these things had never been done before and yet they were able to do them so well. All of these factors led America to be a great industrial nation, and they are all things that shaped society today.
ReplyDeleteOne of the largest topics of this aspect of history, and even broader, maybe the most important in all history, is the issue of labor. This period saw intensely rapid change in the way that labor is carried out (Industrial Revolution), and also the structures that were created to implement/ organize/ regulate labor. In addition to the new corporations and their need for new unskilled workers, organizations began to arise that dealt with protecting the labor forces. Thus began the intense debate on how the government should regulate labor.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that stood out to me the most was how business expansion impacted the USA. For example, how rapidly the steel industry boomed. Due to a mix of high demand and the ability of companies to produce steel at high levels the expansion of America was astronomically greater than any point before. One of the results was the development of railroads, such as the Transcontinental, which led to people establishing towns around them, which starts the endless chain of development. One of the questions I have is how would the USA be different if big business had risen differently?
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out to me this week was the link between technological adoption and economic success. Carnegie’s willingness to adopt new technologies like the Bessemer Process, and then his active procurement and development of technologies like the Open Furnace played a major role in his success. Another theme that stood out to me was the rise of horizontal and vertical integration and it’s role in the rise of the corporation. It raised the question of why such forms of integration only developed in the late 19th century and whether the economy would’ve changed so dramatically without individuals like Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and other industrial titans?
ReplyDeleteWhat fascinated me this week was the creation of the bureaucracy. Before, industries had remained relatively small, and worked in concentrated areas. But with the popularization of railroads, larger organizations with many divisions became necessary in order for the railroad companies to function. They had too far of distances to cover and too many people involved daily to have one person control everything, so specific jobs were distributed to intelligent, ready to work employees that knew how to handle their individual tasks and how to perform them well.
ReplyDeleteDuring today's lecture, I am amazed by how much Andrew Carnegie knew about the WHOLE steel industry. From bottom to the top, he knew every step and found ways to keep the cost to minimum. I kind of feel that he was born at the right time and got into the right places from early on. Everything he did, from the mill to telegraphy, to railroad operation and to steel industry, all seemed to connect and contribute to his career at the end. There is definitely hard work, willingness to learn and a keen sense for opportunity, but I also think that he made an era, and an era made him.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was very interesting how Andrew Carnegie gained the knowledge that helped him establish such a profitable steel empire from his past personal experiences, such as his father’s reaction to the industrialization in Scotland and his work with telegraphs. This shows that he was not only book smart, but he was clever and used everything available to him to his advantage, thus allowing him to be successful even with very modest beginnings. My question is what government did, if anything, to control the spread and monopolistic practices of big businesses such as Carnegie’s?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me was the rise of industrialization. The other week we talked about the idea that abundance has defined American character and it was interesting to develop that thought and show it’s connection to the rise of industry. Rich environment, lots of land, and many rivers were just some ingredients that made up industrialization.The government’s new role of facilitating commerce through internal improvements such as roads, canals, and bridges stuck out to me. I just found it neat that we used the thing that is singular to the US- our environmental richness- to accelerate the nation’s industrial advance, paving the way for corporations and other new concepts that contribute to who we are today.
ReplyDeleteOne theme that particularly stood out for me this week was the shift in popularity of small industry in favour of larger bureaucratic organisations. It struck me that this also allowed a similar transition in the fabrication of products, from small scale artisan production to mass manufacturing, with tasks divided into manageable repetitive parts which accommodated intense labour of unskilled workers. Furthermore, all these factors contributed to efficiency and the maintenance of low costs, two of Carnegie’s main principles.
ReplyDeleteOne theme that stood out to me this week was labor. I like labor as a theme because it is one that gets discussed in every history class... labor is important to every country, every time period and every historical viewpoint. In the material covered this week specifically, I was very interested by how we are starting to see and understand the bureaucracy behind the labor conditions that are arising and will soon have workers demanding reform. An example of the bureaucracy at work: Carnegie was a businessman intent on driving prices down, his business savvy (and knowledge of the field he was in) directly lead to his use of inexpensive labor.
ReplyDeleteThe theme/idea that stood out to me this week was the relationship between technology and the growth of large organizations. Andrew Carnegie was the perfect example, he studied the business model and bureaucracy, and learned how to game the system. However, his large scale success and his legacy as the embodiment of the modern corporation were all dependent on the rise of technology and the role it played in allowing him to grow his company. The rise of technology directly ties into horizontal and vertical integration, allowing for larger and larger enterprises, and helped Carnegie keep wages low. My question is, at what point did the monopolizing power of modern corporations begin to adversely affect the market and workers as a whole?
ReplyDeleteI thought the most interesting concept from this week's reading was the almost perfectly set-up contrast between the beliefs of Andrew Carnegie and his father, Will Carnegie. His father, raised a firm believer in the medieval system of artisan labor, resented the budding technology in his time period that his son, interestingly enough, would master to the point of making unheard sums of money. Their personal views represent an interesting microcosm of the transitional nature of the time period itself. My main question from the lectures was how was Carnegie able to minimize his costs while also investing heavily in R&D to create "the best possible product?" It seems it would be difficult to do both at the same time.
ReplyDeleteWhat stood out to me was the process that led to the Industrial Revolution. After being a mostly agriculture economy until 1865, industry quickly began to dominate the economy. This was no accident since America had an abundance of resources just waiting to be utilized. Once industrial leaders such as Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller came about and the government began aiding business, the corporation phenomenon began. My biggest question is why did the Industrial Revolution not occur until 1865?
ReplyDeleteThe theme that stood out to me most was the idea of opportunity. During this time especially, the United States was seen as the land of opportunity and that is why many immigrated to the States from European countries. The opportunity seen was the possibility of getting a job and having a sustainable life, but Carnegie took opportunity to the next level. In every job he held, he saw the potential to learn more about business, so he could eventually hold these high power positions and succeed. I found that to be extremely interesting, how much drive Carnegie had to succeed and become one of the most powerful men in the world. A question I had from the lecture was how did the federal government not step in when these corporations were creating towns and taking control of the politics in it as well?
ReplyDeleteThere have been a lot of comments about modern corporations, industrialization, and timelessness of labor. All good points. One element from these aspects that I would like to know more about is this: how did Carnegie customize his business procedures to fit certain areas of the country, varying economic "climates" such as unpopulated Midwest, rural South, urban Northeast, etc... These areas used Carnegie's products in different ways - there were fewer skyscrapers or factories built in Alabama or Georgia - so I'm wondering how he customized his business to fit these areas? This is certainly a small question, but I would be interested to see how these regions influenced his pricing, production methods, etc...
ReplyDeleteI thought that it was interesting how the concept of industrialization and the changes that it brought into the workforce was met with opposition in certain parts of the world, particularly Scotland, with the Luddites. It is interesting how the revolution was able to bring so many technical advances in a relatively short amount of time. I am curious as to why a movement similar to the Luddites was never present in the United States, as well as how the US was able to assimilate to the new industrial culture so easily.
ReplyDeleteI would like to step beyond just Carnegie for the primary theme I will address, and shift to the overall economic landscape of the United States following the civil war. The fact that titans of industry such as Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, etc. could emerge is less of a product of their own genius, and more entrenched in the vast economic changes occurring in the later part of the 19th century. Although these individuals dominated the system, it was the rapid economic growth and infrastructure construction coupled with the emergence of the corporation which allowed these massive entities to form. Additionally, this is the beginning of true large scale stock holding (although wall street had existed as a securities exchange before this, it grew to resemble its modern counterpart in this era) which allowed this companies to raise capital on unprecedented levels, while involving the general public. Overall, the primary theme I took away from these readings is not about the individuals that created these companies, but that new legislation and economic factors ultimately allowed these companies to exist. The only questions I have about this subject, and something that I find very interesting, is what happened to all of these massive monopolistic corporations once the government started regulating industry?
ReplyDelete