Given the high marginal tax rate at that income level, it “costs” very little to max a 401k. The first $1400/mo in savings should be easy with the tax advantage. To save substantially more than $1500 on top of that, you’re probably going to need roommates and/or an hour-plus commute.

I think $3k is totally doable, but “way more” involves very substantial loss of quality of life. Also some of that after-tax savings will be eaten by medium-term projects like travel and moving.

$70k in the Midwest and $120k in the Bay Area are pretty close on CoL calculators.

in the comments below i wrote

the big difference is that i don't have a family. But i'm not super frugal. I pay $700/month with utils + internet for my own 1Bedroom apartment. I could've gone much cheaper if I didn't live Downtown (120,000 city population) and could've gotten a roommate in a 2Bedroom aprt. Plus I also eat out at Chipotle/Jimmy Johns almost every other day, then I go drinking maybe once or twice a month. So I could easily save another $500 if I wanted to

If you are getting a $70k salary AFTER taxes, which would then be roughly 90-100k BEFORE taxes, then that'd be equal in the bay area to what? 150k-170k? I don't think this is an equal comparison.

i make $70k before taxes and save $3k after taxes and other expenses.

all back of napkin but im guessing you're playing with 55k after taxes, so 4.6 k a month.

so your total costs (rent/mortgage, food, kids, all in) is only 1.6 k? and you're saving ~65% of what you take home? you must live extremely frugally, this is not normal. so kudos, but don't try to make it sound like everyone should do what you're doing. most people do just fine saving 20-30%, even less.

the big difference is that i don't have a family.

But i'm not super frugal.

I pay $700/month with utils + internet for my own 1Bedroom apartment. I could've gone much cheaper if I didn't live Downtown (120,000 city population) and could've gotten a roommate in a 2Bedroom aprt. Plus I also eat out at Chipotle/Jimmy Johns almost every other day, then I go drinking maybe once or twice a month. So I could easily save another $500 if I wanted to.

Not to harp, but the big difference is your relative cost of living. $700 for 'complete' housing is a pebble compared to > $2000 a month for housing in the bay area. It might not be frugal itself but the choice to pay what you're paying is a luxury compared to the person above.

that's why i said midwest. its not as big as SF but I live Downtown in a 120,000+ area

i know its expensive out there in the Bay but its still my $70k/year vs his $120k/year

If he pays 2k a month and you pay 700 a month thats $24,000 vs $8400 a year. Given that 120k in the bay after tax is probably roughly 95-100k (guesstimate) the simple question is, is OP's after tax pay comparable to your pay relative to housing? No its not, he pays 2.8 times more rent than you. .8 of that is EXTRA because of where the location is (extra 6k a year). So given that plus OP's family expenses its actually fantastic hes saving 2k a month. That 'extra' $500 you 'could' save is what OP pays extra per month (that 6k/12) just for you to be able to say 'oh but thats the bay area'. To make my point more clear take that extra $500, add it to his take home pay. Great, now you are both making equal amounts compared to housing. OP saves 2.5k a month, you save 3k. Now, have yourself a family and try to save 3k with family expenses.

I think after adjusting for cost of living, you are making far more with your 70k salary than OP is with their 120k salary.