General Society Got It Wrong

[shelivesthedream]

Maybe, instead of 'General Society', I should've said 'Capitalism' for this next one - although, in a sense, American society is so soaked in Capitalism that they are one and the same.

The CEO of Statoil, the main oil company of Norway, is taking slings and arrows for having a 14% pay raise (to ~1 Million USD) in exchange for working beyond his plan to retire at 62.  There are probably many of us here that would turn down any amount of money to continue working beyond FI, and many Americans that would scoff at a CEO of a multi-billion dollar company that only makes 1 Million USD/yr. 

But why should middling American CEOs get a free pass to make multi-millions and 10%+ raises, in addition to unlimited spending accounts, better benefits, and a golden parachute if they fail.  It's almost as if we hope that the 1% takes our income, because it gives us hope.  If you were to leave all that money in labor's hands, they'd squander it and society would flounder.  But a Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, superstar athlete, or pop-star musician can do something special to advance our culture.

I, personally, would in principle be very happy to see laws introduced here forbidding the highest paid worker in a company being paid more than X times the amount of the lowest paid worker. If the company does well, EVERYONE gets a raise. The CEO gets X times more than the receptionist, but everyone still benefits. It will make people happier. I don't know what X should be (vague reading memories suggest 20 for maximum happiness) but I'm very on board with the principle.

I, personally, would rather not have the top-earning executives of every major multinational company headquartered in the US move those headquarters abroad.

I don't think that's what he was proposing.  I think he was proposing firms be less vertically integrated and more organized around the value of their employees.
 
So large companies no longer employ any administrative staff.  All low level administrative work is performed by a separate company (which may be a wholly owned subsidiary?) to keep those salaries from artificially limiting compensation.  Your ideal firm is essentially a team of top level executive type people that do nothing but manage contractors (who have their own subcontractors) and so on down the line. 

It would be gloriously inefficient and help the unheralded victims of the financial crisis, corporate lawyers.  With all the new legal work necessary to manage the myriad of corporate entities and contracts that used to be held within a single firm, there would finally be a chicken in every pot and benz in every driveway and 30ft+ boat in every boat slip of every corporate lawyer in america.  I'm really touched at the concern shown for the lowest among us.

Hence my very heavy emphasis of "in principle". Obviously in practice people would then subcontract out everything, but the principle of the CEO earning only (only!) 20 times as much as the person who cleans the toilets is a good one, in my opinion. Also, I'm British.

If you think laborers should make more money than they do in the United States, I'd suggest expanding the earned income tax credit. I think that would work better than writing legislation to restrict money going to Person A in the hopes that it will wind up with Person B instead.

It's not about absolute income, it's about inequality - which has been shown to have a huge impact on happiness.

[pecunia]

Well - Here's one that occurred to me while I've been reading the various comments in this forum.  This whole forum is about retiring early.  I read about many people (myself included) that are "chomping at the bit" to retire.  They don't like their jobs.  They hate their jobs.  They work long hours, are under a lot of pressure and feel unappreciated.

OK, Bunky, Do you think that is right?

These people work hard.  Many of them are highly trained people that benefit the greater good.  They benefit society.

Well - Since they want to go so badly, do you think society has got it wrong?

I was even thinking of starting a post asking what things employers could do to retain these fine people?  Many have many good years left.  If they enjoyed their jobs a bit more, would they stay?

[pdxmonkey]

Reducing the work hours would go a way towards happier people imo. 35 hours.. For office m-f workers 4.5 days I feel would make a big difference. 5 days at 7 hours would be good, but I feel would not have quite the same impact.

I'd be on board with a CEOs can't make a super absurd amount, but would still allow them to make an absurd amount... 500x or so. 10 million. Enough to be relatively competitive on a global scale to make it easy for people to decide to stay vs making the obvious thing to move. Or maybe make it a multiple of the median pay in which case I would be ok with a much smaller multiple as it would encourage spreading wealth around. Making it a multiple of the minimum is just punitive with no carrot or way to realistically have companies pay more/reward performance. They'll just send money to Rich stockholders... Which is even worse than giving it to a working ceo. Everyone is going to have a janitor or equivalent making a multiple of the minimum a maximum wage in which case you may as well just set a $$$ # max.

[pecunia]

I'd be on board with a CEOs can't make a super absurd amount, but would still allow them to make an absurd amount... 500x or so. 10 million.

In a way - The enormous growth of CEO's pay shows us that trickle down economics doesn't work.  Oh I know there is plenty of evidence showing it doesn't work already, but I had never thought of the CEO pay until now.  Give corporations a tax break and the CEO gets more.

Last week I worked five twelves.  I think the four ten thing is pretty good, but yes I've heard the Europeans get more vacation and have a shorter work week.  It seems to work for them.

[Linea_Norway]

I'd be on board with a CEOs can't make a super absurd amount, but would still allow them to make an absurd amount... 500x or so. 10 million.

In a way - The enormous growth of CEO's pay shows us that trickle down economics doesn't work.  Oh I know there is plenty of evidence showing it doesn't work already, but I had never thought of the CEO pay until now.  Give corporations a tax break and the CEO gets more.

Last week I worked five twelves.  I think the four ten thing is pretty good, but yes I've heard the Europeans get more vacation and have a shorter work week.  It seems to work for them.

There is a rumour that Europeans have more vacation than Americans. But I did an informal survey on this forum and found out that many Mustachians have at least as much or even more vacation than we in Norway have.

Shorter working hours is true for Norway. My company had 37,5 hour per week. Standard is 40.
This is not the same everywhere in Europe, as Europe is very diverse.

[marielle]

I'd be on board with a CEOs can't make a super absurd amount, but would still allow them to make an absurd amount... 500x or so. 10 million.

In a way - The enormous growth of CEO's pay shows us that trickle down economics doesn't work.  Oh I know there is plenty of evidence showing it doesn't work already, but I had never thought of the CEO pay until now.  Give corporations a tax break and the CEO gets more.

Last week I worked five twelves.  I think the four ten thing is pretty good, but yes I've heard the Europeans get more vacation and have a shorter work week.  It seems to work for them.

There is a rumour that Europeans have more vacation than Americans. But I did an informal survey on this forum and found out that many Mustachians have at least as much or even more vacation than we in Norway have.

Shorter working hours is true for Norway. My company had 37,5 hour per week. Standard is 40.
This is not the same everywhere in Europe, as Europe is very diverse.

Could this be because most people on this forum are paid salary and are upper middle class? Generally those types of jobs get more benefits. The median salary is $52k. Most of us make more than that even at entry level. Hourly blue-collar jobs are easily replaceable so the benefits aren't as good.

[Linea_Norway]

I'd be on board with a CEOs can't make a super absurd amount, but would still allow them to make an absurd amount... 500x or so. 10 million.

In a way - The enormous growth of CEO's pay shows us that trickle down economics doesn't work.  Oh I know there is plenty of evidence showing it doesn't work already, but I had never thought of the CEO pay until now.  Give corporations a tax break and the CEO gets more.

Last week I worked five twelves.  I think the four ten thing is pretty good, but yes I've heard the Europeans get more vacation and have a shorter work week.  It seems to work for them.

There is a rumour that Europeans have more vacation than Americans. But I did an informal survey on this forum and found out that many Mustachians have at least as much or even more vacation than we in Norway have.

Shorter working hours is true for Norway. My company had 37,5 hour per week. Standard is 40.
This is not the same everywhere in Europe, as Europe is very diverse.

Could this be because most people on this forum are paid salary and are upper middle class? Generally those types of jobs get more benefits. The median salary is $52k. Most of us make more than that even at entry level. Hourly blue-collar jobs are easily replaceable so the benefits aren't as good.

If you are referring to the long vacations the Mustachians have, then I think the conclusion was that they are indeed upper middle class. I found the thread, so you can read for yourself. For your information, I have 5 weeks of vacation, free on the Christian holidays and a 3 extra national holidays. In the Netherlands, at the time I worked there, 20 years ago, it was comparable for most people. Apart from that a small part of the working population have an extra 12 days a year off to create more jobs.

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/to-working-americans-how-many-weeks-vacation-do-you-have/

[pdxmonkey]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

This is something that should be addressed via legislation in my opinion and is possibly even more important than minimum wage. Many will find a way to fritter away more money unproductively while it's pretty hard to waste a paid day/week off. The mental health benefits for the working poor would be quite large imo.

[Hash Brown]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

This is something that should be addressed via legislation in my opinion and is possibly even more important than minimum wage. Many will find a way to fritter away more money unproductively while it's pretty hard to waste a paid day/week off. The mental health benefits for the working poor would be quite large imo.

Things would be helped a bit if we simply shut down everything on Sundays like how it used to be.  Even through the 80s, many retail businesses were closed on Sunday.  Some restaurants closed after lunch if they opened at all. 

All of the enclosed malls and strip malls seem to have motivated the 7-day shopping frenzy.  Back before everyone had cars and the highways were built, people were pretty much limited to what was within walking distance or their streetcar line.  Businesses in a particular neighborhood weren't in competition with those 5 miles away because it was so difficult to get to them.  You had to ride a streetcar downtown and then back out on another line.  Or walk. 

[teen persuasion]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

Yep, this is me!  I don't work, I don't get paid.  Legal holiday?  My paycheck is short.

[mathlete]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

This is something that should be addressed via legislation in my opinion and is possibly even more important than minimum wage. Many will find a way to fritter away more money unproductively while it's pretty hard to waste a paid day/week off. The mental health benefits for the working poor would be quite large imo.

I'm glad I have it now, don't get me wrong, but I feel like this tends to conjure up images of people working 365 days a year without a break. Lots of these jobs are shift work though. You can take time off, you just have to arrange for your shift to be covered. You can call in sick, you just won't get paid for that day.

For example, I made ~$14 an hour in tips and wages combined when I waited tables. If I worked 40/week, but took 2 weeks of vacation and 5 sick days in a year, my equivalent salary would be:

40 * 49 * 14 = $27,440 a year with 3 weeks of time off.

Whether or not these benefits are specifically enumerated in your terms of employment only really matter if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The flexibility was kind of the beauty of the job. In actuality, I made liberal use of getting my shifts covered. Taking vacations and only working about 20 hours/week and making ~$15K a year. Didn't need much more because I had 4 roommates and my expenses were low.

But there were other people who approached the job differently. Immigrants from poor countries who got their green card and started busting their asses and making more than the median US household income. Guys who didn't take much time off and aggressively pursued tables making $60K. A kid right out of high school who worked 28 days in a row, morning and night, so he could afford a sports car.

Everyone got what they wanted out of the job.

[BTDretire]

And yet Asian American females in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 88.89 years

Gulp, I may need to revisit my 30 year retirement, my Asian wife is 57 and really takes good care of herself. Plenty of fruits and vegetable, runs for an hour starting at 4:30am every morning. With those numbers she could make it to 100! Her HDL is constistantly over 90, last test mine was 25, Argh :-(

[GuitarStv]

And yet Asian American females in the U.S. have a life expectancy of 88.89 years

Gulp, I may need to revisit my 30 year retirement, my Asian wife is 57 and really takes good care of herself. Plenty of fruits and vegetable, runs for an hour starting at 4:30am every morning. With those numbers she could make it to 100! Her HDL is constistantly over 90, last test mine was 25, Argh :-(

Start buying her cartons of cigarettes.

[Jrr85]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

This is something that should be addressed via legislation in my opinion and is possibly even more important than minimum wage. Many will find a way to fritter away more money unproductively while it's pretty hard to waste a paid day/week off. The mental health benefits for the working poor would be quite large imo.

I'm glad I have it now, don't get me wrong, but I feel like this tends to conjure up images of people working 365 days a year without a break. Lots of these jobs are shift work though. You can take time off, you just have to arrange for your shift to be covered. You can call in sick, you just won't get paid for that day.

For example, I made ~$14 an hour in tips and wages combined when I waited tables. If I worked 40/week, but took 2 weeks of vacation and 5 sick days in a year, my equivalent salary would be:

40 * 49 * 14 = $27,440 a year with 3 weeks of time off.

Whether or not these benefits are specifically enumerated in your terms of employment only really matter if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The flexibility was kind of the beauty of the job. In actuality, I made liberal use of getting my shifts covered. Taking vacations and only working about 20 hours/week and making ~$15K a year. Didn't need much more because I had 4 roommates and my expenses were low.

But there were other people who approached the job differently. Immigrants from poor countries who got their green card and started busting their asses and making more than the median US household income. Guys who didn't take much time off and aggressively pursued tables making $60K. A kid right out of high school who worked 28 days in a row, morning and night, so he could afford a sports car.

Everyone got what they wanted out of the job.

I think this is a disconnect with a lot of people.  They just assume that if certain benefits are mandated, it will come out of the pockets of either the owners or other, more highly paid employees.  That's probably true to an extent, but for the most part, mandating benefits doesn't really change the bargaining position of the parties.  So if somebody is able to command say $30k of earnings working approximately 47 weeks out of the year but they get no paid sick or vacation leave and no paid holidays, and you mandate that they get ten paid holidays plus two weeks vacation plus two weeks sick leave, then they will still end up earning about $30k, but it will be spread out over the entire year instead of matching what they work, when they work, and maybe you will make people more likely to take sick days slightly better off at the expense of people less likely to take sick days. 

I think once you work for a job where you are only paid for production, either because that's they way your compensation is set up or because you are self employed, it's easy to see.  But I guess it's not so easy to see when you haven't.

I will say that I've worked where there was non vacation, sick leave, holidays etc. and you just get paid based on production, and I've worked with generous leave, and I enjoy having the generous leave more, even though it is a lower paying job.   But that's not entirely rational on my part and I'd also probably rather be higher paid if I was further down the income ladder and couldn't afford the lower pay in exchange for a less psychologically taxing arrangement.

[mathlete]

I think this is a disconnect with a lot of people.  They just assume that if certain benefits are mandated, it will come out of the pockets of either the owners or other, more highly paid employees.  That's probably true to an extent, but for the most part, mandating benefits doesn't really change the bargaining position of the parties.  So if somebody is able to command say $30k of earnings working approximately 47 weeks out of the year but they get no paid sick or vacation leave and no paid holidays, and you mandate that they get ten paid holidays plus two weeks vacation plus two weeks sick leave, then they will still end up earning about $30k, but it will be spread out over the entire year instead of matching what they work, when they work, and maybe you will make people more likely to take sick days slightly better off at the expense of people less likely to take sick days. 

I think once you work for a job where you are only paid for production, either because that's they way your compensation is set up or because you are self employed, it's easy to see.  But I guess it's not so easy to see when you haven't.

I will say that I've worked where there was non vacation, sick leave, holidays etc. and you just get paid based on production, and I've worked with generous leave, and I enjoy having the generous leave more, even though it is a lower paying job.   But that's not entirely rational on my part and I'd also probably rather be higher paid if I was further down the income ladder and couldn't afford the lower pay in exchange for a less psychologically taxing arrangement.

Yeah. This is why I'm more in favor of helping people through welfare and the tax code. A stronger safety net. Expanded EITC. Expanded child care credits.

I'm not so big on writing more labor laws though. Mostly because, unless you're living life completely at the margins (in which case I think the government should do more to directly help, see above), capitalism actually provides recourse for a lot of these issues. You can trade money for time, or time for money, or convenience for money, or whatever. You can choose not to patronize businesses with a compensation structure that you disagree with. You can buy shares in the business and affect that compensation while also sharing in the profits.

That last one typically gets me laughed at. That ordinary people can affect anything by voting at shareholder meetings. But our votes are just one in many tens of millions in federal elections. And the effectiveness of being politically active at the Federal level is pretty dependent upon your geography anyway. But a great many of us spend a lot of time hyped up about what the government should or shouldn't be doing.

[snowball]

A lot of people in the United States have 0 days vacation, 0 sick days, and 0 holidays. Something approaching half the population of I recall.

This is something that should be addressed via legislation in my opinion and is possibly even more important than minimum wage. Many will find a way to fritter away more money unproductively while it's pretty hard to waste a paid day/week off. The mental health benefits for the working poor would be quite large imo.

I'm glad I have it now, don't get me wrong, but I feel like this tends to conjure up images of people working 365 days a year without a break. Lots of these jobs are shift work though. You can take time off, you just have to arrange for your shift to be covered. You can call in sick, you just won't get paid for that day.

For example, I made ~$14 an hour in tips and wages combined when I waited tables. If I worked 40/week, but took 2 weeks of vacation and 5 sick days in a year, my equivalent salary would be:

40 * 49 * 14 = $27,440 a year with 3 weeks of time off.

Whether or not these benefits are specifically enumerated in your terms of employment only really matter if you're living paycheck-to-paycheck.

The flexibility was kind of the beauty of the job. In actuality, I made liberal use of getting my shifts covered. Taking vacations and only working about 20 hours/week and making ~$15K a year. Didn't need much more because I had 4 roommates and my expenses were low.

But there were other people who approached the job differently. Immigrants from poor countries who got their green card and started busting their asses and making more than the median US household income. Guys who didn't take much time off and aggressively pursued tables making $60K. A kid right out of high school who worked 28 days in a row, morning and night, so he could afford a sports car.

Everyone got what they wanted out of the job.

I think this is a disconnect with a lot of people.  They just assume that if certain benefits are mandated, it will come out of the pockets of either the owners or other, more highly paid employees.  That's probably true to an extent, but for the most part, mandating benefits doesn't really change the bargaining position of the parties.  So if somebody is able to command say $30k of earnings working approximately 47 weeks out of the year but they get no paid sick or vacation leave and no paid holidays, and you mandate that they get ten paid holidays plus two weeks vacation plus two weeks sick leave, then they will still end up earning about $30k, but it will be spread out over the entire year instead of matching what they work, when they work, and maybe you will make people more likely to take sick days slightly better off at the expense of people less likely to take sick days. 

Although everyone is better off if more people who are sick/contagious stay home where they are less likely to infect others.  Especially workers who deal with food.  :/

I agree it's unlikely to change how much income people are actually making over the course of the year, but sick days do incentivize behaviours that are better for public health, so I like them for that reason.

[pecunia]

"Although everyone is better off if more people who are sick/contagious stay home where they are less likely to infect others.  Especially workers who deal with food.  :/"

Double whammy there ain't there?  Can't stay home 'cuz you lose the pay.  Can't go to the doctor 'cuz you can't pay.

That is one of the problems with America's "Pay If You Can" medical system.

Yeh - Maybe General Society has got it Wrong!

The more I learn about medicine in the United States, the more I see I need to know about Preventive Medicine.

[Blindsquirrel]

 no joke on the preventative medicine path. Need to get on the treadmill! Here is a link you may like to read. It has the cost of tuition at Ohio University from the civil war to today. The places where you do not see a tuition number are not errors. That is because the university was free to Ohio residents but they did charge a registration fee of $45.

https://www.ohio.edu/instres/Factbook/tuitroom.html

   The rise of the cost of an education is GD ridiculous IMHO. We can fund wars to no end but we in the USA refuse to fund our future citizens but the younger generation will be saddled with crazy debts.
 From family experience (and also a demo of the power of inflation), when my father attended OSU after WW2 in 1946, Tuition for a year was $45, plus books and rooming with an aunt with the tab picked up by the GI bill.
In 1986 the cost for a year at Ohio State University was $1900 and change plus books and a place to stay. You could easily work and pay for your school and OSU is one of the better deals for a college education.

 Fast forward to today. It is now a requirement for students to live on campus for their first 2 years. From the OSU website, Cost of Attendance In-state: $25,539 Out-of-state: $44,731
 
To save some math in 70 years or so the cost has risen about 25,000% unadjusted for inflation if you use $90 for a years expenses give or take a several thousand percent. On an inflation adjusted basis, $90 in 1946 is about $1194 in 2017 dollars so the cost has really only gone up 2194% for one year on an inflation adjusted basis in the last 70 years.
For comparison $1 in vested in the SP500 from 1946-2016 is worth $1467 unadjusted for inflation and $111 when adjusted for inflation. Tuition hikes have probably beaten Warren Buffett over his lifetime.
  That my friends is mother F-ing nuts and a great demonstration of inflation and compound interest BTW! General society has messed that up very much I think and I have a great deal of sympathy for those going to college these days. - Now- get off my lawn! :)
    

[mathlete]

no joke on the preventative medicine path. Need to get on the treadmill! Here is a link you may like to read. It has the cost of tuition at Ohio University from the civil war to today. The places where you do not see a tuition number are not errors. That is because the university was free to Ohio residents but they did charge a registration fee of $45.

https://www.ohio.edu/instres/Factbook/tuitroom.html

   The rise of the cost of an education is GD ridiculous IMHO. We can fund wars to no end but we in the USA refuse to fund our future citizens but the younger generation will be saddled with crazy debts.
 From family experience (and also a demo of the power of inflation), when my father attended OSU after WW2 in 1946, Tuition for a year was $45, plus books and rooming with an aunt with the tab picked up by the GI bill.
In 1986 the cost for a year at Ohio State University was $1900 and change plus books and a place to stay. You could easily work and pay for your school and OSU is one of the better deals for a college education.

 Fast forward to today. It is now a requirement for students to live on campus for their first 2 years. From the OSU website, Cost of Attendance In-state: $25,539 Out-of-state: $44,731
 
To save some math in 70 years or so the cost has risen about 25,000% unadjusted for inflation if you use $90 for a years expenses give or take a several thousand percent. On an inflation adjusted basis, $90 in 1946 is about $1194 in 2017 dollars so the cost has really only gone up 2194% for one year on an inflation adjusted basis in the last 70 years.
For comparison $1 in vested in the SP500 from 1946-2016 is worth $1467 unadjusted for inflation and $111 when adjusted for inflation. Tuition hikes have probably beaten Warren Buffett over his lifetime.
  That my friends is mother F-ing nuts and a great demonstration of inflation and compound interest BTW! General society has messed that up very much I think and I have a great deal of sympathy for those going to college these days. - Now- get off my lawn! :)

The two years of on campus living thing sucks. I did want to point out though, that Ohio State offers a number of 2+2 programs with the Columbus State Community College: http://www.cscc.edu/academics/transfer/colleges/ohio-state-pre-majors.shtml

It would be nice if states funded universities to the level that they used to, but the university campus thing these days is a pretty posh experience, and students can save tens of thousands of dollars on it if they're looking to do that.

[mm1970]

no joke on the preventative medicine path. Need to get on the treadmill! Here is a link you may like to read. It has the cost of tuition at Ohio University from the civil war to today. The places where you do not see a tuition number are not errors. That is because the university was free to Ohio residents but they did charge a registration fee of $45.

https://www.ohio.edu/instres/Factbook/tuitroom.html

   The rise of the cost of an education is GD ridiculous IMHO. We can fund wars to no end but we in the USA refuse to fund our future citizens but the younger generation will be saddled with crazy debts.
 From family experience (and also a demo of the power of inflation), when my father attended OSU after WW2 in 1946, Tuition for a year was $45, plus books and rooming with an aunt with the tab picked up by the GI bill.
In 1986 the cost for a year at Ohio State University was $1900 and change plus books and a place to stay. You could easily work and pay for your school and OSU is one of the better deals for a college education.

 Fast forward to today. It is now a requirement for students to live on campus for their first 2 years. From the OSU website, Cost of Attendance In-state: $25,539 Out-of-state: $44,731
 
To save some math in 70 years or so the cost has risen about 25,000% unadjusted for inflation if you use $90 for a years expenses give or take a several thousand percent. On an inflation adjusted basis, $90 in 1946 is about $1194 in 2017 dollars so the cost has really only gone up 2194% for one year on an inflation adjusted basis in the last 70 years.
For comparison $1 in vested in the SP500 from 1946-2016 is worth $1467 unadjusted for inflation and $111 when adjusted for inflation. Tuition hikes have probably beaten Warren Buffett over his lifetime.
  That my friends is mother F-ing nuts and a great demonstration of inflation and compound interest BTW! General society has messed that up very much I think and I have a great deal of sympathy for those going to college these days. - Now- get off my lawn! :)

The two years of on campus living thing sucks. I did want to point out though, that Ohio State offers a number of 2+2 programs with the Columbus State Community College: http://www.cscc.edu/academics/transfer/colleges/ohio-state-pre-majors.shtml

It would be nice if states funded universities to the level that they used to, but the university campus thing these days is a pretty posh experience, and students can save tens of thousands of dollars on it if they're looking to do that.

Plus, there are a list of exceptions.  They may not apply to a traditional student UNLESS you happen to live with your parents.

Even my home town college in Western PA has this ridiculous rule, and a ridiculous cost...BUT, if you dig into the exceptions, you can continue to live with your parents.  Which is what many of my HS classmates did.