* Vacation, sick, and holiday time off
* Distance to work and traffic considerations
* Relative cost of living
* Health insurance cost and coverage amount
* Retirement benefits (401k, pension, etc)
* Expected work hours per week
That way we'd know at least.
1. 8 days PTO - yeah...seriously, so basically no time off
2. distance to work was about 20-30 minutes -- not bad
3. LOW relative cost of living -- that 100K STRETCHES FAR, unlike in the bay area
4. no health insurance, no coverage
5. no retirement benefits
6. 70-80ish hours (basically late nights + weekends) weeks prior to investor meetings, 60-70ish hours normally
Take it as you may but taking out just one of those points above changes your whole perspective on the job.
I'm part of a University system pension scheme that, while operating with a sizable unfunded liability, is fairly stable and has a good outlook. In the end there is a risk but it's difficult to quantify looking out 35 years in the future. I do know better than to take it as a 100% and have eggs in other baskets as well.
When I was fresh out of college, I had no wife, no kids, no bills, no house. I took all the cool startup perks - free concert tickets, free box tickets to pro sports teams in town, free RedBull, free pop and food, free lunch.
Now in my 30's I have bills, investments, a house mortgage. I went to interview at some smaller startups and established web agencies and they were pitching me on all the "freebies" and I'm thinking, "You know what? Free RedBull doesn't pay my mortgage or my car payment." My view completely changed from taking the handouts to trying to leverage a higher salary in lieu of those things.
You have to remember, you only have so many years where you can burn the candle at several ends and still walk away with your sanity.
They're not really free, because that money could be otherwise used to pay you. I'd rather get money that I could then spend on lunch, than get free lunch.
In the US, free lunch at work is not considered income for the purposes of taxation , but salary that you'd be using towards lunch would be taxed. So, if you eat lunch at work either way, you're going to be getting about 1⅔ as much lunch in-kind as opposed to in salary (assuming marginal 40% state+federal tax).
And that's setting aside the issue of whether it's a good use of your time/energy/willpower to contemplate what/where/how to feed yourself in the middle of your workday.
It's more that it's a mental and physical break from work, and a good reason to stretch my legs. I can't stand being cooped up in an office for a full 8 hours at a stretch.
Very few people in the US pay that.
https://codehappy.info/ works just fine. (:
...Perhaps a corporate slack channel that candidates are invited to join?
Salary is useful for buying things, up until a point, and at a certain point (assuming you aren't too materialistic) whether you are enjoying the job and other things gets to be way more important, and monetary compensation really doesn't make you that much happier.
So other than that, spot on.
My comment is addressing this question, and more generally, this recent interest in posting your salary.
Still, great ideas on your part.
I don't think it was a question.
I could leave and probably make quite a bit more, but I don't think all the benefits would come along with it. Also the relative cost of living almost guarantees that even if I did leave, what I pocketed after all expenses would almost certainly be less.
> They give us unlimited PTO,
Tell me exactly the number of days off I can have and make them no questions asked. That way I can clock out and forget that the office exists for 4 weeks or more. At my current employer I have 13 weeks of scheduled paid time off, plus paid paternity leave and 20 paid no questions asked sick/family leave days which roll over from year to year.
Unlimited PTO is a cold hearted, calculated sham which has been designed to screw you over 
The rest of the benefits you're getting sounds quite good.
 - http://www.inc.com/gene-marks/why-unlimited-paid-time-off-is...
 - http://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2015/08/26/unlimited-vac...
Unedit: The best balance seems to be setting a lower bound. E.g. at my employer we have 25 days PTO minimum, and actually if we don't meet that and leave the company they've contractually obligated themselves to pay that back to you. So we're very much encouraged to hit that limit and it's very common to exceed it.
Here's a sample of the conditions I can enjoy as a teacher here in Australia
$100k salary with guaranteed yearly increases that outpace inflation (this year was a 2.5% increase while inflation is at around 1.6%)
Guilt free, no questions asked sick leave.
Work-life balance. It was trivial for me to apply for part-time work. I now only work Mon-Thu.
Union-led, rolling negotiations for improved pay, working conditions, reductions to work hours etc.
It's the closest thing to a worker's paradise I can think of short of a post work, robot singularity.
Obviously not every profession is subsidized by the government like teaching and therefore can't, by extension, remain competitive while also being so worker friendly.
Even if you're not lucky enough to have such amazing conditions let's all at least call a spade a spade. Things like unlimited PTO are just ways to screw the little guy.
I find it hard to believe that people advocate for such fundamentally unsustainable arrangements. Guaranteed raises outpacing inflation that aren't tied to performance at all? Nobody should be surprised when the costs to support a workforce that trends towards mediocrity (why try when you're not rewarded) eventually reach a point that breaks the bank (see California).
It's great that you got a position like that, but an economy cannot survive with a workforce that has massive compensation guaranteed without regard to market forces (see Greece).
I've long suspected that one of the prime dysfunctions of US corporate culture is the projection of greed, puerility, incompetence, and worthlessness by management onto "lower" workers.
In reality the whole point of being a professional is that you get paid well, you produce good results, but it's not just about the money - because you have an ethic of personal pride in your work, and will over-deliver if you're allowed to.
The worst kinds of corporate management in the US spend an incredible amount of time trying to enforce this state in theory, while simultaneously undermining it in practice.
The best kinds of state ownership around the world prove that it can only flourish in a more mature, stable, and sane environment.
When all are treated the same, regardless of performance, there are two possible situations - either all are rewarded as though underperforming (i.e. raise below inflation), or all are rewarded as though performing well (i.e. raise at or above inflation).
In the former case, my intuition is that your point is probably correct. If I know I'm going to be treated as though I'm the worst employee in the building, I might stop trying after a while.
In the latter case, my intuition is that you are probably wrong. Just because the worst employee is being rewarded as well as I am, it doesn't mean I'll sink to that level.
The intrinsic motivation to do well, improve, and learn all outweigh anything to with competition, and it's a pretty unhealthy culture that relies on the employees competing with their team mates to get them to do their jobs. However, that intrinsic motivation can only go so far when faced with an ever falling budget to maintain your lifestyle.
> support a workforce that trends towards mediocrity
> but an economy cannot survive with a workforce that has massive compensation guaranteed without regard to market forces
Basically, Nobody has ever offered me less money than I need to live/retire on. Everything else depends on the job for me.
"Is this job right for me" is of course far more complex topic but that's not the point of the salary discussion, IMO.
"Expedia sucks! Don't come here ..."
That being said, cost of living is probably the most difficult to asses as there are also many relative variables.
work life balance could probably be assessed simply by an average work week length. I theorize work life balance is affected on an exponential scale with every additional hour.
Non-pay benefits are a function of your employer.
Distance to work is a function of where you live and where you work.
Cost of living is generally able to be eyeballed based on the location.
Like "short-term incentives" aka bonuses, these are just different "shiny objects" aka distractions your employer can wave around to keep you unfocused on some other part of the value exchange, such as no versioning of code or an ancient and unwieldy code base, poorly-maintained infrastructure, not keeping the building warm enough, or "modestly immoral" activities like nepotism.
* Belief in company's mission, how passionate you are about what they do
AFAIK, to get to my range and beyond, you need to be a top performer (and bring a multiple in value of your salary to the company), be an expert in in-demand technologies (ones that aren't really in demand don't count), have a good network including senior managers / executives at companies that want to hire you, and you need to know how to negotiate. And, you can't negotiate if you don't know what others are paid. Surveys like this should be helpful.
I only know all this from talking to a friend who tried to poach a Netflix employee, maybe someone who actually works there can chime in.
I kid, I kid ;)
The bigger problem isn't my individual case, but how many other engineers are in a similar range and never participate in surveys like this. I don't know.
In summary, I wish I had your problems :)
For example, you could have (City, State) for the location, and (numbers only) for numeric input fields.
It baffled me when I lived there, and it still baffles me when I don't.
Places I looked at also included parking. In a place like NYC or SF a parking spot can cost over $800.00/month. There's just so many wealthy people in NYC and SF and so much more demand for limited living space.
Cost of living will influence salaries a lot.
Anyway, I've begun the house search in New York City. I'm looking for a 1 bedroom apartment, in some place like Brooklyn Heights, Carrol Gardens, Gowanus, etc. Not Midtown Manhattan or Tribeca. Setting the budget to $700,000, literally everything available is a tiny shithole. I did find a small 1 bedroom apartment in Brooklyn Heights that's nice. 3 million dollars.
I did the same search in Chicago. For half the money, you can get 1500 square feet, with nice modern finishings, 13 foot ceilings, etc. right downtown. If I were buying in Chicago, my conundrum would be "this is really too much space, my house is going to feel _empty_".
The NYC and SF housing situation is really quite insane. The best career move I can imagine making is keeping my current salary and literally moving anywhere else in the world, except maybe London. The rest of the world is dirt cheap compared to NYC and the bay area. It's so crazy.
I'm not an expert but my opinion is the NYC housing market isn't a deal right now or even a fair value. I'm not saying it's a bubble, but it's certainly not cheap. If I stay here I'm just going to keep saving and see if I get lucky with a housing dip and my savings intact.
Plus, if you buy into a co-op (more common in Manhattan I believe) the purchase requirements are steep. Often 30% down, 2 years mortgage/maintenance/taxes in liquid cash available, among other things. High entry requirements but creates some stability.
I really think renting is cheaper than buying in NYC right now when you factor in all the costs. You get a nice tax write off with owning, to be sure, but it's a wash I've figured. I don't see how prices can keep getting higher and higher right now. But I thought that 4 years ago too in places in Brooklyn and I was wrong.
What's funny is my only other real option is to move to London since my wife is from there and would eventually like to move back I think. Their housing market is in fact a bubble and I simply wouldn't buy anywhere near there right now.
You're definitely competing with households that have two incomes, hence 3 million dollars being spent on one bedroom apartments. If you have a household income of $1M a year pre-tax, certainly a possibility for two programmers mid-career, then you have a lot of options.
Personally, I don't care about living in New York except that my job is here, so it may be nearing the time to move back to Chicago.
Note, I could be wrong. These could be the worst places you're talking about. But it seems like there are at least a few around 800k, and the housing market moves fast [so you'll see lots of options if you look for a couple months].
20% down: $160,000
24 months mortgage in the bank: $68,000
24 months maintenance/property tax in the bank: $36,000
For a total of $264,000 not including closing costs. I don't have $264,000 lying around at this precise moment.
$600,000 is my real budget. $700,000 is for searching and getting an idea of "what if I wait another year and save up some more money".
All in all I'm not that excited. My apartment that I rent for $2500/month is way better than any of those places that turn up. And by "way better", I mean "still an embarrassment compared to the house I grew up in when I was a kid, that cost less than the down payment for a studio in Brooklyn". I don't even have a microwave.
20% down is usually the bottom. A lot of places want 25% or 30% down and there's also a chance you're going against someone with 100% cash and the board will pick them nearly every time.
Lastly, if you're using every dime you have so you get a mortgage well over 500k that may be a bad choice. The opportunity cost of tying that much cash up into a mortgage is a lot of risk (all your net worth in 1 investment) and you're unable to use that cash to make other investments and leverage them if need be.
I don't look at real-estate as an investment, but rather as a sunk cost. I need somewhere to live, I want to screw around with walls and plumbing fixtures when I feel like it, owning seems like the right option.
Of course you don't actually own your co-op, you just own shares in a company that actually owns your property.
But to nit; I believe a coop is only 10% down (condos are 20%. Either way it doesn't really change your math). And I'm still years from being able to buy a place in NYC, so sigh
Please find me a Co-Op in NYC that lets you in with 10%.
According to cost of living calculators, I would need ~250k in SF to be equal to my comp in Chicago, and my wife would need ~135k. My salary increase to be at parity is probably doable, but from other people's posts, it would require a pretty good job that included RSUs. I'm also not in a 100% development role, which I think I would need to do in order to get that kind of pay in SF, and it would probably be hard to break into (plus I just turned 30, I'm an old man now, hah).
And if you can suffer the commute, in the suburbs, you get a condo AND a parking spot for $800 a month. o_o
But alas, the move was not to be (for now anyways).
Chicago's 'tech scene' is mostly either trading or tech applied in an incremental way to an existing business model, eg Groupon. The trading firms do pay quite well, but you'll be in an extreme niche and likely have limited insight into how you could ever leave, given you've not been building products/programming so much as coding performance improvements. The few "hard tech" companies I've seen come from Chicago are either a generation old at this point (eg Motorola) or have gone under (eg TempoIQ).
The other fact of Chicago is, most of the tech talent here is here for reasons beyond having the best job ever. When I moved back, just about no one could believe that I didn't have a family/significant other/etc reason to move back beyond the job itself. When you have a market like that, employers have some buying power with the talent that does need to stay here. There's simply so few alternatives to the situation, given there's also little appetite for significantly striking out on your own, compared to the coast.
Edit: I'll also say the appetite for go big or go home company growth is limited here. Can't tell you the last time I saw a "shoot for the moon" idea originate in Chicago. There are pros/cons to that, admittedly.
That being said, I think there are plenty of interesting tech companies here if you dig a bit. For example, CleverSafe (https://www.cleversafe.com/), Signal (http://www.signal.co/), and BrainTree (https://www.braintreepayments.com/) are larger ones with real engineering challenges.
And, if you are interested in a smaller Chicago company doing interesting things, feel free to check out Earshot (http://earshotinc.com/careers) - we are hiring. </plug>
Even if Earshot isn't right for you feel free to connect with me if you are interested in the Chicago startup scene.
"Oh, you already have offers on the table in NYC and Boston, with no family here? Yeah, I understand why you wouldn't be interested in Chicago"
I'm in Chicago making ~95k and these threads the last couple days have been ever so mildly depressing, with people graduating same year as me and making $323k.
There are people in the top 1% who "feel poor" - because they live in expensive homes, drive luxury cars, feel the need to send their kids to the most expensive private schools, and have friends who own yachts - and there are millionaires who basically live like they make $80,000. I would aim more toward the latter (although obviously going too far in that direction can be unhealthy too).
A lot of them cannot or just don't want to move far away for more pay. A lot of the grads are from chicago or smaller midwestern cities.
I don't care what people say, pay is all just social status. Even relatively objective measures like, "I made the company XX" are only possible in the scope of narrow consulting engagements, and such estimates are hazy.
Trying to quantify the long-term economic value of an employee is even worse.
Someone here recently ranted a bit against the fact that bright minds work in finance on useless work instead of greater things. The one answer from such a worker was about the huge difference between management compensation and worker compensation in those other, "more important" fields. Not the absolute salary.
This is because I am not only the first employee but the only employee (if you don't count CEO) and only technical person. I was hired to build a SaaS/Company by the owner of a company and to make that company it's first official customer of the SaaS. I'm being paid out of his pocket and the profits of his company. The pay isn't even close to what a software engineer with my experience should make, let alone the VP of Engineering. But it's above average salary in my state/area and is enough for me to live on.
I have worked for companies where I was underpaid but the work was great and the co-workers were amazing and now I work for a company where the work is boring but the pay is excellent (like you, for where I live) which makes more sense for my family right now. I'm okay with it, but I miss the old work environment.
But at least I ended up with some interesting stories to tell when I interviewed for my next job.
Seriously, you're putting a lot of faith in people who have every reason to screw you over. Even if they seem like they're on your side now, things change. In a couple of years when there's the genuine prospect of real money, there's a big risk that their attitude will change.
Or when you start saying "no" to impossible deadlines you'll see who actually makes the decisions.
And you are replaceable. They can make you feel good by getting you to hire a few people, and then encourage you to train them up and hand things over so you're not a key person risk, and then they don't need you any more.
Or maybe they'll just make a really dumb decision and get rid of the person that actually held everything together for all that time without having a sensible plan for the future. It happens. And that feeling of vindication when you watch it all fall apart without you doesn't make up for all the money you gave up when you gave them a "we're all in this together" discount on your wages.
That means you're not.
> I've taken reigns and made all the decisions.
For which they are well within their rights to pay you $0 for upon termination.
> I will become the CTO and co-founder of this company when it launches.
Then it should be no trouble to get that in writing to protect yourself.
Read this tweetstorm: https://twitter.com/patio11/status/710191728763015169
On top of that, being the only technical person and have full control over everything, including domains, hosting, code, etc. It's not really like I can be forced out.
That you don't know pretty much guarantees you have zero legal control. I assume the corporate entity is not in your name. Domains, hosting, etc are all very easily gotten from you by a single letter from a lawyer. You will likely hire your own lawyer, and you'll essentially be paying him to tell that you have to cough up, because you'll lose in court, in addition to tens of thousands of dollars and a ruined reputation.
You were paid for those things. You can't hold them ransom.
Holding this stuff hostage would not work out well and should not be considered a contingency plan.
You could also easily top that on an online freelancing site like Upwork. I have friends that are Upwork-exclusive and make upwards of $200k per year. It takes a while to get that going, but it's a great option if you can swing it.
Also it is a lot easier to go from Big co to tiny co later in your career than the other way around.
This is likely to hurt you in the long run.
For the category 2512, "Software- and Systemsdeveloper etc.", which is VERY broad but includes most developers and Application Experts (which is the role I currently have), the 90th percentile salary is $81-82k. The 10th percentile is $40k.
Median salary for men is $60k, and every so slightly lower for women.
Don't forget the huge system difference.
Are those salaries before taxes or after taxes? Europeans like to know their salary after taxes. Health benefits, PTO, parental leave? In US it's totally under your company's grace, where in Europe most of this is set by law.
All in all salaries are counted different, if employee in Europe has a salary (after taxes) of 30k €, then usually around 15-25k € went for taxes. Thus salary before taxation 45-55k €. Nevertheless employer must pay for that employee somewhere in between 5-15k € (at least in my country) of employer taxes (which are not part of employees salary, but employer is taxes according to it). So whole cost of one employee who is compensated 30k € after taxes is 50-70k €.
Of course it depends on the country and there are 'tax havens'.
And even then, a good salary for a software developer with good experience would be 60k-80k pre taxes here, usually no bonuses or stock grants, so 100-150k in the US for juniors is still a big difference and imo comes down to the fact of huge competition in the market more than anything.
In the UK, it's always gross, pre-(employee-paid)-tax yearly salary.
In Slovenia, on the other hand, it's usually net, post-tax, monthly salary.
Anti-female, sexist, or insensitive-about-female-issue posts regularly get downvoted and flagged, from what I've seen.
I'm not even a feminist; in fact I'm vehemently in favor of equal treatment and opportunities but against special treatment except maybe if it's a strictly temporary measure. But at the risk of using feminist rhetoric, it's almost as if there's an invisible wall that prevents these issues being seriously treated. It's incredibly annoying. Maybe it's a US thing, I see less of it at home in Scandinavia. Europe in general is either-or, I guess.
We have our share of gender discrimination problems (going in both directions), but this particular variety seems less prevalent. I really hope this gets better over time, or that there are good ways to avoid the problem. Must be annoying to deal with when you only want to do a good job and participate on equal terms in the community.
And yes, it is incredibly annoying. I would very much prefer to be talking about dependencies and package (mis)management or whatever. If the gender equality issues would go away I would be quite glad to never mention them again.
I don't think these are related.
Not sure why I imagined there wouldn't be any blatant trolls/ads on an anonymous Google Doc survey, but most of this info is still incredibly insightful!
As a sidenote: results may be incredibly skewed as there is no currency indicator, I'd imagine lots of fellow Canadians would be putting down CAD which is currently down 24 cents...
1) It should use the Facebook model of release where only "elite" institutions are allowed on at first and only one at a time.
2) It should use geolocation as a way to verify the user works there (other ways are easier to game or too burdensome). Yes, this does leave out remote workers. See #1.
You want /r/roastme for coworkers-- but private. Somewhere that you can rank former coworkers and they can rank you-- But the biggest selling point needs to be that this dossier is only ever available to you. NEVER to potential employers, coworkers, etc.
There are some interesting problems-- like delaying/masking the changing in your ELO such that it can't be tied to people you know have ranked you, otherwise you'll get an obvious bias because people don't want to risk a burnt bridge.
But I think if people are honest about their salaries on such a site, you can give them a reasonable idea of if they're being underpaid.
I can't see a way to get the data out of there other than saving as a html page, there are no standard google docs controls available. Am I missing something?
I wonder if what we really need is for it to just be straight public with your name attached.
What if LinkedIn had a salary section? Let you display your current or historical salary. Would people do that? Say what they make? Seems unlikely. What if it's what they used to make?
In Sweden this information is all public and searchable. So far their economy and culture hasn't collapsed.
Secret salary information has near exclusive financial benefit to the employer. The only employee benefit is protecting their feeling.
And now what? The supervisor could be 100% right, and maybe the employee just isn't worth that amount of money. Or maybe it doesn't make for the company to pay that amount of money. The employee could claim discrimination for any of a number of reasons, and it's almost impossible to prove that person X isn't worth as much to the company as person Y is to a different company. It seems like it could just create acrimony in what was previously a good relationship.
Transparency in pay is important, but it's almost impossible to evaluate in an empirical way, much less a scientific one. Not to mention that there is wide discretion in compensation. It's illegal to pay someone less because of their race or gender, but employers can pay someone an extra $5k a year just because they liked the color of their tie during the last negotiation.
Get paid what you're worth, but don't depend entirely on others to find out what that is.
It would be nice if a simple spreadsheet could include minimum PTO/year and some anecdotal average working hours (does everyone live at the office? or not?)
Anyone want to team up to do my work for me? I show up and be 'the face', and then you take 50% of what I make. We both win.
Either that, or I give you all a class in negotiation. :-)
In OSX / Firefox I see the usual text in the web view, but in source view there's a variation in shading between characters, in what should be an unadorned monospaced font. Viewing the same source in Chrome shows the trick for what it is...
Subtle and not always visible due to differences in display normalization in various libraries? Way out of my depth for system fonts / encoding issues. But hopefully the above shows what I'm talking about. Could there be some data hidden in the lookalike string values?
Source: live in RDU, was an engineering director until last summer, hired lots of people here over the years and know a bunch more. What's disturbing is the number of companies only hiring contractors or contract-to-hire engineers around here.
So, no different than anywhere else.
(PS: When in doubt check airport codes.)
Others will also refer to it as RTP, but that's really a specific area in RDU.
Uh, I mean, that was a total fluke, there are no jobs here, go on about your business... ;)
I was interviewing when I found the $99K job and another company said they'd pay $80K, but want to me work minimum 60 hours.
Locations shouldn't be limited to numbers. Also, now that the salary field is limited to numbers, it should be clear which currency everything should be converted to, since people can't put their currencies in the column anymore.
Best offers I have seen out of college is $130K total comp from random people on the internet, haven't seen anything better yet.
Part of the reason that I'm staying is because I'm in a tremendous amount of debt and therefore I've become extremely paranoid and risk-averse. Part of the reason is that said debt has me working a second job and I am in a largely-dysfunctional relationship besides, so I have very little energy outside of this job. Part of the reason is that I have gained 80 pounds and no longer fit into any nice clothes for a job interview, with very little chance of me getting anything nice any time soon.
Man, that paragraph makes me sound like such a downer. I promise that I'm really happy and easygoing most of the time! That's just the more-sober reality of why I find it a huge struggle to jump onto some new thing.
Where I live in a rural small town, I make top 5% tech salary (~80k$ canadian pesos). The same salary in Montreal is probably 25-30 percentile of tech salary? In Vancouver it probably would be 45th percentile of tech salaries. That said a the price of a Vancouver condo buys a Montreal Duplex and buys a whole New Brunswick suburban sub-division... Or a mansion with a few acres on the sea front and 5 bedrooms / 7 baths...
I'm doing an apprenticeship starting when I was 17 year old and I only earn $11K (I don't pay income tax because it's so low) and yet I managed to save up 8k because I live with my parents right now and except maybe buying a car I don't even know what to spend it on.
For context rent is here at about $400/month for a single bedroom apartment. Another $300/month is enough to cover food and utilities for at least two people.
Unless you want to retire in san francisco or some big city there is no real advantage to buying a home there. So are you buying a new tesla every two years? Are you buying a macbook/iphone/high-end gaming pc every month? I honestly have no clue.
EDIT: Maybe I should also mention that the company will pay me at least $30k/y after the apprenticeship.
Cars: 15-80k (each)
Expensive Clothing: $3-5k/year
Retirement & Other Investments: $0 - 50k/year
Repeat some of that stuff for their children, add college expenses, maybe private school.
Those are just some examples that I largely based off of my sister. She is constantly expanding/improving her home (bathroom remodel and new pool in the past 18 months), she loves big expensive jewelry, she has designer purses and clothing, they have 4 cars which all have TVs and other fancy options in them, they have a class A RV, her husband builds cars & races at the track, they have young boys and everyone has a dirtbike, boys have modern toys/video games/etc.
You might think "wow, that's ridiculous," but really they're just spending to their level of income. It's pretty common.
You, on the other hand, seem to be more like me. Of my salary I'm required to spend 8.2% on my mortgage, so I don't default. I've started a homestead that I've been buying a lot of tools and equipment for. My utilities come out to another ~1.5% of my salary. Everything else is savings, and/or thrown on to the mortgage. I'm going to pay my mortgage off fully in ~18-24 months (total time). I have no other debts and after that I can save 100% of my salary. I'd like to maybe build a new home on this homestead someday, but I'm not going to go into debt to build it. In the meantime, the salary affords me the luxury of no financial concerns and the ability to help others when they need it.
If I had no debts or ambitions to own property, and I didn't mind living in a small single bedroom apartment like your example, I would spend the $700/month on my living expenses and save the rest. I'd probably dip into savings to visit another country each year. I'd retire early.
In the end, that's your real answer. Savings & retirement funds. You just haven't thought that far ahead because you're very young.
I have a Toyota. I don't need a Tesla.
I am a (relatively) happy person.
What more could I want?
One thing that I have noticed at my own school is that many of my peers undersell themselves and don't even apply to the highest paying companies despite being very qualified.
If someone has downloaded this, could you put it up somewhere else please?