@Imperfectfuture wrote:Dear yfan and longtimelurker. You offer valid view points, but the debate is taking this thread WAY off initial track. Try to lesson the debate here, pretty please, with mileage bonus on top?
Okay, okay. I'll try and lessen the debate. ;-) Haha sorry, I can be a grammar nazi sometimes - that is a fault I'll admit.
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@Anonymous wrote:
@yfan wrote:
@longtimelurker wrote:No, I am saying you don't know what, if anything, is putting the system at risk. After all, my guess (and just a guess) would be the vast majority of card holders do not churn, and churning every two years for 40K UR may not be at all significant, compared to the cost of a large number of people spending decent amounts of money month after month. Certainly large volumes of miles from credit cards has caused airliens to devalue their rewards. Maybe most of htis was from bonus churners, or maybe not. But I don't think you know any better than I do.
So, everyone, please spend no more than $50 a month on your reward cards or you will put the programs in peril for us all!
Nah, in fact, let's all churn and make it mandatory for everyone who uses a card at all to do the same. Because hey, we don't know that to be a threat to the system now, do we?
I knew you'd come around!!
Putt' er' there, Pal!
More snark? Let's remember this forum is not typical of current card holders.
@Imperfectfuture wrote:
@longtimelurker wrote:
@yfan wrote:Recently you complained about people deciding what your argument was, and here you are doing the same.
Not even close. I bolded a direct quote from you that clearly states pretty much exactly what I claimed you said. You claimed that I don't know that churning is putting the system at risk and followed it up by saying that most people don't churn, and those who do are drowned out by those who don't. You stated your argument. I didn't decide it for you.
My point is many cards lose value (including partner devaluations) anyway, despite my belef that only a tiny portion of users churn. Basically too many people earning too many points for the airlines and hotels to be happy. Perhaps your belief that "churning is bad" colors your interpretation.As restated here, that was not my argument. Equally, a small minority of people with a card live in zip codes beginning 024, and cards are nerfed anyway, does not imply that I iflat out admit that living in 024 is a risk to issuers, but these are drowned out by those living elsewhere. I am suggesting that BECAUSE the number iof churners is small (if it indeed is) there is no good reason to ascribe blame to them to the extent you do. So, yes, you were misinterpreting my argument, which you complained about others doing to you.
Your examples of Chase's nerfing, for example, prove my point, they don't contradict it.
How? What high-risk behavvior is being addressed by getting rid of the dividend? Or the 10% ion Freedom . Or is you claim that Chase has to reduce benefits becuase of high-risk abiuse in other areas, so everyone suffers. Which would be circular as that is the point of contention.
Dear yfan and longtimelurker. You offer valid view points, but the debate is taking this thread WAY off initial track. Try to lessen the debate here, pretty please, with mileage bonus on top?
What's OP's take on it?
@Anonymous wrote:
My coworker redeem 150,000 UR for statement credit. I asked him why? The bank teller suggested he should redeem it for statement credit.
Should have seen the look in his face after I told him what he could use the UR points for.
