Earlier quoted context omitted.
Q: What's wrong in having a CLA? A: It allows you to re-license your project in future. It gives the original author the right to relicense your contributions at a moment's notice, to a license you might not agree with. It effectively means that you cannot contribute to the project under fair terms. A CLA is similar to a EULA in the sense that most people don't care about it and blindly click "Agree", and as such are…
You have just listed the benefits of having a CLA. This post is about why projects should pick a license not how contributors should prioritise what they spend their time on. If you are trying to build something commercial and be open-source this is a good recommendation.
In short, if you want to appear like a corporation who acts in bad faith, aims to abuse their contributors and only cares about FOSS for the free labor they get from the people who are gullible enough to contribute, a CLA is a great choice for your product!