Investors name 5 biggest barriers to financial goals

Australian investors say housing costs, goods inflation and slow wage growth are the main barriers to achieving their financial goals, according to a survey. Their biggest goals in order of importance are retiring and living off their investments, supplementing their work income with investment income, funding holidays and travel, cutting back on their hours of work and buying a home.

Online trading platform Stake surveyed more than 2,000 Australian investors for a comprehensive report about their ambitions this year. The report concluded that the biggest barriers to financial goals reflected a broader problem, being that salary and wages are not keeping up with rises in the cost of living, including property prices and weekly rents.

Australians say the biggest barriers to achieving their financial goals are as follows.

Housing costs

Saving a deposit is one of the biggest hurdles for first home buyers today, with most workers unable to save fast enough to keep up with rising home values. The median Australian home price rose by $59,000 over FY24 while rents increased by 7.3 percent over the same period. CoreLogic data shows rents have risen by almost 40 percent over the past five years. Stake CEO, Jon Howie said: “In Australia, over the past 30 years, house prices have risen by an average of 8 percent per annum, compared to around 3 percent for wages …”.

Goods inflation

Since the pandemic, rising inflation has significantly increased the cost of goods and services. At its peak, inflation hit 7.8 percent per annum in the December quarter of 2022, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). By that time, the cost of petrol had risen 13.2 percent over the year and fruit and vegetables were up 12.6 percent. Higher interest rates are now working to bring the rate of inflation down. But this only means the cost of goods and services is rising at a slower pace. For example, petrol prices rose by another 7.7 percent in FY24. Services inflation is higher, with insurance up 14 percent over FY24 and electricity up 6 percent (although without government rebates it would have been 14.6 percent higher).

Slow wage growth

This week the ABS published an updated Wage Price Index report, which found wages rose by 0.8 percent over the June quarter while inflation rose by 1 percent. Over FY24, wages rose by 4.1 percent and inflation rose by 3.8 percent. Once again, higher interest rates are bringing the rate of inflation down now. However, when inflation was at its peak of 7.8 percent in December 2022, wage growth was well below this at 3.3 percent.

Costs of supporting a family

ABS data documenting how inflation is affecting various household types found employee households, which include working families, are worst affected. The ABS Living Cost Index for employee households rose by 6.2 percent in FY24 compared to the overall inflation rate of 3.8 percent. A recent report from KPMG found rising living costs were impacting family formation. KPMG urban economist Terry Rawnsley said: “With the current rise in living expenses applying pressure on household finances, many Australians have decided to delay starting or expanding their families.”

Unfair tax system

While the Stake report did not specify which taxes survey respondents felt were unfair, there is ongoing debate in the community about tax breaks given to property investors. Negative gearing is very common among Australian landlords, with rental income not typically enough to cover holding costs, including interest on an investment loan. Landlords are able to deduct this loss against other taxable income, such as their salaries. Investors also pay tax on only 50 percent of their capital gains when they sell an asset if they have held the asset for more than 12 months.

There has rarely, if ever, been so much tech talent available in the job market. Yet many tech companies say good help is hard to find.

What gives?

U.S. colleges more than doubled the number of computer-science degrees awarded from 2013 to 2022, according to federal data. Then came round after round of layoffs at Google, Meta, Amazon, and others.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts businesses will employ 6% fewer computer programmers in 2034 than they did last year.

All of this should, in theory, mean there is an ample supply of eager, capable engineers ready for hire.

But in their feverish pursuit of artificial-intelligence supremacy, employers say there aren’t enough people with the most in-demand skills. The few perceived as AI savants can command multimillion-dollar pay packages. On a second tier of AI savvy, workers can rake in close to $1 million a year .

Landing a job is tough for most everyone else.

Frustrated job seekers contend businesses could expand the AI talent pipeline with a little imagination. The argument is companies should accept that relatively few people have AI-specific experience because the technology is so new. They ought to focus on identifying candidates with transferable skills and let those people learn on the job.

Often, though, companies seem to hold out for dream candidates with deep backgrounds in machine learning. Many AI-related roles go unfilled for weeks or months—or get taken off job boards only to be reposted soon after.

Playing a different game

It is difficult to define what makes an AI all-star, but I’m sorry to report that it’s probably not whatever you’re doing.

Maybe you’re learning how to work more efficiently with the aid of ChatGPT and its robotic brethren. Perhaps you’re taking one of those innumerable AI certificate courses.

You might as well be playing pickup basketball at your local YMCA in hopes of being signed by the Los Angeles Lakers. The AI minds that companies truly covet are almost as rare as professional athletes.

“We’re talking about hundreds of people in the world, at the most,” says Cristóbal Valenzuela, chief executive of Runway, which makes AI image and video tools.

He describes it like this: Picture an AI model as a machine with 1,000 dials. The goal is to train the machine to detect patterns and predict outcomes. To do this, you have to feed it reams of data and know which dials to adjust—and by how much.

The universe of people with the right touch is confined to those with uncanny intuition, genius-level smarts or the foresight (possibly luck) to go into AI many years ago, before it was all the rage.

As a venture-backed startup with about 120 employees, Runway doesn’t necessarily vie with Silicon Valley giants for the AI job market’s version of LeBron James. But when I spoke with Valenzuela recently, his company was advertising base salaries of up to $440,000 for an engineering manager and $490,000 for a director of machine learning.

A job listing like one of these might attract 2,000 applicants in a week, Valenzuela says, and there is a decent chance he won’t pick any of them. A lot of people who claim to be AI literate merely produce “workslop”—generic, low-quality material. He spends a lot of time reading academic journals and browsing GitHub portfolios, and recruiting people whose work impresses him.

In addition to an uncommon skill set, companies trying to win in the hypercompetitive AI arena are scouting for commitment bordering on fanaticism .

Daniel Park is seeking three new members for his nine-person startup. He says he will wait a year or longer if that’s what it takes to fill roles with advertised base salaries of up to $500,000.

He’s looking for “prodigies” willing to work seven days a week. Much of the team lives together in a six-bedroom house in San Francisco.

If this sounds like a lonely existence, Park’s team members may be able to solve their own problem. His company, Pickle, aims to develop personalised AI companions akin to Tony Stark’s Jarvis in “Iron Man.”

Overlooked

James Strawn wasn’t an AI early adopter, and the father of two teenagers doesn’t want to sacrifice his personal life for a job. He is beginning to wonder whether there is still a place for people like him in the tech sector.

He was laid off over the summer after 25 years at Adobe , where he was a senior software quality-assurance engineer. Strawn, 55, started as a contractor and recalls his hiring as a leap of faith by the company.

He had been an artist and graphic designer. The managers who interviewed him figured he could use that background to help make Illustrator and other Adobe software more user-friendly.

Looking for work now, he doesn’t see the same willingness by companies to take a chance on someone whose résumé isn’t a perfect match to the job description. He’s had one interview since his layoff.

“I always thought my years of experience at a high-profile company would at least be enough to get me interviews where I could explain how I could contribute,” says Strawn, who is taking foundational AI courses. “It’s just not like that.”

The trouble for people starting out in AI—whether recent grads or job switchers like Strawn—is that companies see them as a dime a dozen.

“There’s this AI arms race, and the fact of the matter is entry-level people aren’t going to help you win it,” says Matt Massucci, CEO of the tech recruiting firm Hirewell. “There’s this concept of the 10x engineer—the one engineer who can do the work of 10. That’s what companies are really leaning into and paying for.”

He adds that companies can automate some low-level engineering tasks, which frees up more money to throw at high-end talent.

It’s a dynamic that creates a few handsomely paid haves and a lot more have-nots.