Vacuum Cleaners Discussions

ORECK - The business, the history, the machine, the man and related.

(Below: Oreck 1979 to 2008)

  < yr. 1979  < yr. 5/2008

DysonInventsBig wrote:

DIB,

As everyone knows I have always been pro Dyson.  I will repeat that I feel it is priced too high.  I also think there are lesser vacs that are way overpriced.  If an Oreck is worth $800 the Dyson is worth $2000. I think the Dyson is worth as much as Miele, Kirby and other over priced brands.  Again they are all over priced.

I could say that if JD gave up on his other projects he could reduce the price of his vacuum.  On the other hand he does invest his money to help others whereas the other brands simply pocket the profits.

So what if JD goes busted.  Look at how he gave others a job and contributed to the economy.  At least he contributed.  What has Oreck offered?  Maybe winimum wage and a paid holiday for its employees while the family lives in luxury.  What have the other brands given in return?

Most any vac costing over $200 is over priced IMHO.

-----------------

Hi Hardsell,

We should all be grateful someone has the guts to innovate and gamble bringing innovations to market.  This takes money.  Last I checked Sir James was spending $95m on R&D.  Yes, he is not investing in vacuum cleaners only.  I have heard rumors of future products.  If they prove out, they will give people greater choices and hopefully create wealth and jobs too.        DIB

Your economic praise for dyson is misplaced if you live in the USA and the UK.  Dyson products are made in MAL-ASIA and imported by the USA and UK.  Sales contribute to foreign countries and workers at the expense of the US and UK economies.   It's an outflow of US and UK resources/capital when Americans/Brits buy dyson products.   

ORECK is made in the USA with several US plants, 500 US stores and hundreds of US employees.  Sales of ORECK-s contribute to the US economy and US workers, increasing people's wealth here not abroad.  Like they say in the USA:  Buy American.  I like to add: Especially in the current economic times.

Carmine D.

Oreck... "Made in America".  Made by... (illegals)?  ... it’s a fair question.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20090111/BUSINESS01/901110346/1003/NEWS01

http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?S=7323049

DysonInventsBig wrote:
Yes DIB, it's a fair enough question.  Nonetheless, I have to first admit that during a four-and-one-half year period of my life I continually worked outside this country as an "illegal".  In my situation I did not work for a low return.  In this case however and keeping in mind the quote stating that wealth is made on the backs of the poor, low-cost labor by the hands of non-natives residing in or outside our country is advantageous to businesses of all kinds and American consumers are making no effort to refuse the resulting product.

Thinking on my time in Europe and elsewhere, I distinctly recall Sweden.  The rule there is that no one from outside the country may work there without gaining the express permission of the government BEFORE entering the country.  No matter your area or level of expertise, you couldn't sweep floors there or sing grand opera per that law -- plain and simple.  Further, if that law is violated, the Swedish government in addition to usually expected action will permanently shut down the errant business establishment that employed illegal workers.

It is highly doubtful that similar standards will be accepted here any time soon.  First, because business is simply greedy that way -- "Never pay anybody any more than you just have to" -- and second, prior aliens either now sworn or born into U.S. citizenship may well not look kindly on the idea and seriously hurt somebody at the polls.

As long as American business -- of which a large part appears to be reluctant to pay a decent wage to anyone -- cannot manufacture and sell its product for what it sees as a proper return it will go looking elswhere.  I also think because the issue is about money that persons in government who might actually be able to do something concrete will continue to look away because loss of such a benefit would be consider detrimental to "friends" who run Americans and businesses.

None of this stuff happens without someone responsible for oversight somewhere along the line turning a blind eye. 

Venson

How unkind and uncharitable to refer to people as illegal.  Las Vegas is built and served by people with diverse ethnic backgrounds.  Praise God for their efforts and ambitions.

The sadness and tragedy of it all is that these "illegals" contribute over $2 BILLION dollars a year to the Social Security Fund and will probably never collect any money out of it!  A sin that cries out to God!

Carmine D.

CarmineD wrote:

If you do not report income earnings how do you contribute to SS?  Most illegals are not contributing to our financial security. Diverse is not always illegal.

Good question HS! 

Unfortunately many "illegals" are contributing but they don't have accurate/correct social security numbers [so they can't be tracked], hence the reason they are unkindly called "illegal."  But their employers are required by law to withhold social security from their wages and remit to the Government, under penalty of law for not doing so.  Hence, the reason they will never collect any of it themselves.

True, diverse doesn't mean illegal.  But....'illegal' as used by most generally means diverse.  If you read the links DIB provided about the employees in your neck of the woods, they don't speak English as a first language.  I'd say that makes them diverse.

Carmine D 

HARDSELL wrote:
Hi Hardsell,

What about indirect contribution?  Even if not performing work in a government sanctioned fashion, by way of earned American dollars, alien laborers return money, including sales tax, for food, lodging and clothing to the U.S. communities they work or reside in. 

I don't imagine that they anticipate receiving social security benefits.  Nonetheless, their local daily spending will in some way support it for someone else.  As well, I've seen natural-born Americans who've barely hit a lick at a snake their whole lives get SSi benefits PLUS subsidies if the SSI rate they received was considered to low by way of the cost of living standard.

Venson

> It is interesting that the federal government provides a
> single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00
> and each can also get an additional $580.00 in social assistance for a total
of$2,470.00 .
>
> This compares very well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the
growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years can only receive a monthly
maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplemen

Can anyone verify if this is true?

HS:

The $1012 for max monthly social security payout is dated.  At a minimum it does not reflect the 5.7 increase granted in January 2009 for all recipients.  And I'd suggest the base amount is too low now too.  What is your source and date?

Carmine D.