Travel Hacking is a term that a lot of members here know, some argue with the term, but it works well enough for me. I'd like to think that the Saverocity concept goes beyond this, and a more accurate term might be ''gamers. We aren't blinkered by looking at travel in isolation, but how that aspect of our lives, both in terms of budget and in terms of experience, can dovetail with the broader picture.
Gaming is something that troubles me as a concept. Last night I chatted with Saianel and the Doctor about a transaction that occurred in Walmart. A person was paying $9.50 to send $50 to their daughter (who did not have a SSN).
Let's go worst case and assume the person was an illegal immigrant. There's a huge argument to be had about immigration, but I'd like to let it slide for now, barring the broader picture - should a corporation be allowed to 'game' an immigrant because they have little to no other options?
On one level, it is very 'American' to take the capitalist view of profiting from this situation, but is it proper?
That takes me onto the way that we game. I know that many might say it is OK to game the big corporations because they are exploiting the weak, be it a bank, or Walmart in this case, but are we hiding behind excuses here and simply finding a justification for our habits?
Gaming is broader than travel hacking. My view on it has been that providing that I act legally I will exploit beneficial rules - an example might be the manner in which Traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs work together, because of the rules, I've managed to really come out ahead here. But am I gaming the government now, and does that cause harm?
The problem of course comes down to rife corruption in the government, where they accept kickbacks for allowing rules for the wealthy. So again, it is easy for me to 'justify' my actions.. but are they proper?
In the broadest sense, if everyone is gaming everyone then I think that spells for long term disaster for a society. But how can one stop?
When it comes to a Walmart, people might say 'this is why I don't mind gaming them' but what good does that do for the immigrant? If anything, people gaming Walmart might lower profits, and the person to suffer will again be the immigrant. In this game it is always going to be the least educated that suffers the most.
This is the same with a credit card company - people justify gaming them because they are 'bad companies' but if the gaming hits profits, it must be replaced by increased fees and APRs on the less fortunate. Certainly, we might be stripping some profit from the company, but in reality the money flows from the uneducated/in debt/struggling people to the banks and is somewhat diverted by a gamer. So aren't we leaching from the weak, not the strong?
What if we educated the weak to teach them to avoid fees, and be smarter with their money? If it could be successful, the flow of money to the bank would decrease, and ultimately there would be less profit to pay out, and we would be harmed.
At what point can we make a decision to help others, even if doing so may harm ourselves?
Gaming is something that troubles me as a concept. Last night I chatted with Saianel and the Doctor about a transaction that occurred in Walmart. A person was paying $9.50 to send $50 to their daughter (who did not have a SSN).
Let's go worst case and assume the person was an illegal immigrant. There's a huge argument to be had about immigration, but I'd like to let it slide for now, barring the broader picture - should a corporation be allowed to 'game' an immigrant because they have little to no other options?
On one level, it is very 'American' to take the capitalist view of profiting from this situation, but is it proper?
That takes me onto the way that we game. I know that many might say it is OK to game the big corporations because they are exploiting the weak, be it a bank, or Walmart in this case, but are we hiding behind excuses here and simply finding a justification for our habits?
Gaming is broader than travel hacking. My view on it has been that providing that I act legally I will exploit beneficial rules - an example might be the manner in which Traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs work together, because of the rules, I've managed to really come out ahead here. But am I gaming the government now, and does that cause harm?
The problem of course comes down to rife corruption in the government, where they accept kickbacks for allowing rules for the wealthy. So again, it is easy for me to 'justify' my actions.. but are they proper?
In the broadest sense, if everyone is gaming everyone then I think that spells for long term disaster for a society. But how can one stop?
When it comes to a Walmart, people might say 'this is why I don't mind gaming them' but what good does that do for the immigrant? If anything, people gaming Walmart might lower profits, and the person to suffer will again be the immigrant. In this game it is always going to be the least educated that suffers the most.
This is the same with a credit card company - people justify gaming them because they are 'bad companies' but if the gaming hits profits, it must be replaced by increased fees and APRs on the less fortunate. Certainly, we might be stripping some profit from the company, but in reality the money flows from the uneducated/in debt/struggling people to the banks and is somewhat diverted by a gamer. So aren't we leaching from the weak, not the strong?
What if we educated the weak to teach them to avoid fees, and be smarter with their money? If it could be successful, the flow of money to the bank would decrease, and ultimately there would be less profit to pay out, and we would be harmed.
At what point can we make a decision to help others, even if doing so may harm ourselves?