Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Can we separate our work and home memories, 'Severance' style?
The hit Apple TV show 'Severance' offers a tempting alternative to balancing work and home life by using neural implants to entirely split the memories. But according to Carnegie Mellon University neuroscientist Dr. Alison Barth, this work-life separation is somewhat possible even without an implant. In an interview, Dr. Barth explains: "We all experience some compartmentalization between our private and our work lives. Having a different location where you work and play makes that easier, but the cues for 'life' and 'work' can be as simple as time of day, or what your computer screen looks like." In addition, she says humans can "easily move in and out" of our work and personal worlds, and that there are many examples of people whose work and private lives are completely 'severed'. CMU neuroscientist Alison Barth shares her thoughts on the TV thriller Severance As far as the feasibility of technology to control our memories for us, Dr. Barth says: "I don't think that it is possible to program people so that they simply cannot access memories outside of a particular space and time." And she further warns of the dangers of such a separation: "The potential for abuse and lack of accountability are horrifying. In Severance, the office workers have little notion of what their work is. It would be hard to hold them accountable in a court of law. Severance is perfectly suited to corporate malfeasance," she explained. Watch Alison Barth's CMU Experts video below to learn more about her research seeking to understand how experience transforms the properties of neurons to encode memory.
Nurse Scientist Susan Smith Birkhoff Makes Two Research ‘Firsts’ in Delaware
Susan Smith Birkhoff, Ph.D., RN, is making nursing history in the First State through the Delaware IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE). She is the first nurse scientist to be named an INBRE site principal investigator and she is the first nurse to receive the Seema S. Sonnad Mentor of the Year Award from INBRE’s Junior Investigator Network. INBRE is a collaborative network of Delaware academic, health care and research institutions, composed of ChristianaCare, Delaware State University, Delaware Technical Community College Nemours Children’s Health and University of Delaware. First nurse scientist to lead INBRE site As the INBRE site principal investigator at ChristianaCare, Smith Birkhoff will expand on the research network’s success at a large academic health center. In collaboration with the INBRE partners and the program manager, Kellie Patterson, BSN, RN, CCRP, she will leverage centers of excellence across ChristianaCare to host an exceptional student program, increase the health system's contributions to the pilot program pool and grow the visibility of INBRE across the enterprise. “Susan brings a terrific combination of skills to this role,” said Omar Khan, M.D., MHS, FAAFP, chief scientific officer for ChristianaCare and institutional representative on the INBRE steering committee. “She is a mentor, scientist and teacher, and her experience with INBRE and the state’s other premier research programs will ensure that we deliver the highest value for the Delaware community.” Smith Birkhoff leads and supports interprofessional research education, systemwide technology evaluation, and grantsmanship. She spearheads a diverse research program, encompassing areas such as robotics in health care, virtual reality in medicine and burnout in the nursing workforce. As program director of Technology Research & Education at ChristianaCare, she collaborates across the health system’s academic research enterprise to achieve both clinician- and patient-oriented research outcomes. “Susan is a wonderful colleague and she is a true researcher-educator,” said Neil Jasani, M.D., MBA, FACEP, chief academic officer for ChristianaCare. “She is a great fit for the work of Delaware INBRE as we advance ChristianaCare’s contribution to this essential research network.” She co-leads an innovative program to study the one of the first deployments of increasingly autonomous robots in a U.S. health care setting and directs the first Nursing Research Fellowship in Robotics and Innovation, housed at ChristianaCare. First nurse named Mentor of the Year Smith Birkhoff received the 2025 Seema S. Sonnad Mentor of the Year Award from INBRE’s Junior Investigator Network, nominated for her exceptional mentorship by ChristianaCare colleagues whom she mentored. Her nominators were: Kaci Rainey, MSN, RN, CEN, TCRN, an evidence-based practice specialist at ChristianaCare, and Briana Abernathy, BSN, RN, CEN, a nurse in utilization management at ChristianaCare and an inaugral nurse fellow in the Nursing Research Fellowship in Robotics and Innovation. “They say that if you are not at the table, you are on the menu. We are profoundly grateful that Dr. Smith Birkhoff selflessly provided us with a seat at the table and an overflowing feast of knowledge,” said Abernathy in presenting the award. “This knowledge has quenched our thirst for change and fueled our hunger for research and innovation, setting the stage for the rest of our careers.”
Expert Opinion: Maneuvering friendships in the age of half-truths can be challenging
I recently shared an op-ed written by my colleague and friend, Ted Petersen, on a few social media sites. His thoughtful piece advocated for media literacy education. Later that day I received an alert that someone had commented on my post. The comment, made by a dear friend, alluded to disinformation about U.S.A.I.D.’s use of funds ― a false assertion that the federal agency supported the news outlet Politico for partisan gain. The comment was a perfect example of why media literacy education is important ― not just for school children. It gives people the tools to navigate a borderless media environment in which news and opinion, verified facts and unsubstantiated statements, and information and entertainment coexist. My dilemma after reading the comment was multi-faceted. What should I do? Do I respond? If so, how do I tell my friend that he is misinformed? If I don’t respond, am I shirking my responsibility as a friend, a citizen, an educator? How do I now live in a world in which my friends and family consume and trust media that actively promote disinformation? And, most importantly, how do I live in a world in which people I love are listening to a barrage of messages telling them that I am evil? That I cannot be trusted? That I should be hated? Because underlying his deceptively simple comment is the possibility that, like many, my friend trusts certain media and messages while castigating all those that don’t always align with their world view. These messages are coming through media channels that give voice to leaders and media personalities who gain traction with their audiences by demonizing those they deem their enemies. They use half-truths and outright lies to gain sway with their followers. Anyone who thinks, looks, believes differently cannot be trusted. As a media scholar I have studied media effects, persuasion, and audiences. I’ve analyzed the meaning audiences give messages and how different approaches affect audience perceptions. I’ve written about the importance of narrative and message framing. I have advocated for the ethical use of these powerful tools. As a human being, I’m saddened as I witness blatant disregard for ethical principles in those leaders and media personalities who wield communication like a weapon to undermine trust. The results are impenetrable walls separating us from those who should be our allies. After spending most of my life believing I was part of a community, able to agree or disagree, discuss and argue, to teach and to learn in conversation with others, I find myself the “other.” Dismissed. Demonized. Hated. Not by faceless strangers, but by those dear to me. I suspect I’m not alone in this feeling ― regardless of ideological preferences. Discord is painful. My heart hurts. Yet, I am stubbornly hopeful. When I see my students from different backgrounds, cultures, and generations, discussing ideas for solutions to social issues, I am hopeful. When I hear my pastor fearlessly speaking to the congregation about loving each other even in disagreement, I am hopeful. When I speak to community groups and listen to their concerns and insights, I am hopeful. When I have a long-overdue conversation with my friend instead of relying on mediated social platforms, I am hopeful. I recently spoke to a Rotary Club and borrowed their four-way test to suggest a healthier relationship with media and communication generally. Of the things we produce, consume, or share, we should ask ourselves: Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? Will it build goodwill and better friendships? Will it be beneficial to all concerned? If the answer to any of those questions is no, we should change the channel, seek another source for context, delete the post, block the sender, or adjust our message so we can answer yes And if you are asking yourself why you should be fair, or build goodwill, or benefit anyone from “the other side” ―perhaps scroll through your photos or look at the pictures on your desk or mantel. We are not adversaries. We’re on the same side. It’s time to stop listening to those who tell us otherwise. Heidi Hatfield Edwards is associate dean in Florida Tech’s College of Psychology and Liberal Arts and head of the School of Arts and Communication where she is a professor of communication. She began her career as a media professional and worked nearly a decade gaining experience across multiple media platforms and in strategic communication. She teaches courses in mass communication, theory, and science communication. Heidi is available to speak with media. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
Expert Insight: Keeping the power on!
With extreme weather becoming more commonplace than a phenomenon, America's reliance on power and electricity has been in the spotlight. Unfortunately, it's not for its resilience and reliability, but for the vulnerability of millions of Americans with each passing weather event. Florida Tech's Ken Cummins contributed to a recent study published in PLOS Climate that examined how various extreme weather events threaten the power grid in the United States. Multiple studies have shown that power outages alone can increase threats to human health—from spoiled food to failing medical equipment to a loss of heat in winter. These threats become more dire when paired with severe weather. This kind of information could be useful to utility companies, which must allocate finite resources for maintenance and repair and make plans for a range of scenarios, said Ken Cummins, a researcher at the Florida Institute of Technology with experience in grid reliability who wasn’t involved in the research. (Cummins is a former science adviser to Eos.) But he cautioned that the specific infrastructure used by local electric utilities, which can vary significantly, is also an important factor. “One thing that would be a problem in St. Louis might not be a problem in Denver or Omaha and would certainly be a different problem in New York City or Long Island,” he said. February 21 - EOS The same research got a lot of coverage across America and internationally. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction: ZME Science: This is a vital topic given the weight climate change and extreme weather are now placing on America's energy sector. If you're a journalist looking to cover this topic, let us help. Dr. Ken Cummins is a part-time Research Professor in the Department of Aerospace, Physics, and Space Sciences at Florida Institute of Technology. He is formally trained in statistical signal processing, modeling, and instrumentation. Ken is available to speak with media. Contact Adam Lowenstein, Director of Media Communications at Florida Institute of Technology at adam@fit.edu to arrange an interview today.
Expert Research: The Surprising Source of Next-Gen Antibiotics: Oyster Blood
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing concern across the world and it has doctors worried and scientists working hard to find a solution Basically, AMR is when bacteria and viruses no longer respond to antimicrobial medicines. The result is making infections harder to treat and increases the risk of spreading disease. Recently, Texas Christian University researcher Shauna McGillivray commented on exciting new research in this area that was featured in the media: The search for a solution to antimicrobial resistance found something. And researchers found it in a true “it’s always the last place you look” location. Australian oysters. Or more specifically, Australian oyster blood. Antimicrobial proteins and peptides (AMPPs) “… are an exciting area with a lot of potential,” said Shauna McGillivray, professor of biology at TCU with an emphasis on host-pathogen interactions. “[They] are by themselves very potent but, as has been noted in multiple studies, they can also synergize with existing antibiotics, thereby improving efficacy of antibiotics, even in some cases to antibiotics to which there are high levels of resistance.” Feb. 22 -Phamed.com This is an amazing find and could be groundbreaking for the pharmaceutical industry and health care. And if you're looking to know more about this research and what it means for health care - then let us help. Shauna McGillivray, associate professor of biology is available to speak with media about her recent research - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Defining Oligarchy: The Fusion of Wealth and Power in American Democracy
Oligarchy is being thrown around a lot these days. But what does the term mean? Is America an oligarchy? And how does oligarchy help explain American democracy today? Political rhetoric scholar Luke Winslow, Ph.D., associate professor of communication at Baylor University and author of “Oligarchy in America: Power, Justice, and the Rule of the Few,” has traced the evolution of oligarchy in the United States to shed light on how modern oligarchy is reshaping America through the increasing fusion of economic power and political influence. Winslow’s research focuses on how the influence of oligarchy has impacted American political rhetoric, as well as how it is showing up in modern politics and political communications. Defining Oligarchy Oligarchy is a term that most people associate with other countries, but it “is not something that just happens in Russia. It's something that happens everywhere, and it always has,” Winslow said. In the simplest of terms, oligarchy attempts to explain the convergence of economic and political power. Winslow offered four key distinctions on oligarchy: Oligarchy is exclusive. It represents a form of governance focused on preserving the political and economic influence of the wealthy by securing the approval of the rest of the population. “It assumes not everyone is qualified to deliberate, participate and legislate,” Winslow said. When it comes to oligarchy, there is a belief that extreme wealth is equated to intellectual fitness across all domains, including governance. Wealth vs. income. It is important to distinguish between wealth and income. Income covers daily expenses, whereas wealth is more easily used to exert political power. “What truly sets an oligarch apart is the political power their wealth can command,” Winslow said. Understated and subtle. Modern oligarchy operates through persuasion by “enticing rather than commanding citizens and maintaining what seems like an absence from political authority,” Winslow said. It is in this absence that oligarchs can influence indirect political actions, especially since they are not (typically) elected officials and cannot be removed from office. Legal Immunity. Oligarchs have no fear of legal consequences because oligarchy itself is not against the law, Winslow said. The First Amendment protects the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” legitimizing lobbying and campaign donations. A robust system of campaign contributions and political lobbying – both of which are perfectly legal – can shape media narratives and put pressure on state and local governments. While wealth and politics have always coexisted, oligarchy is about how these forces merge to create a system where the ultra-rich exert undue influence over democratic institutions, Winslow said. “This convergence has long existed in history but is now unfolding in the U.S. more visibly – and perhaps more accepted – than ever before,” he said. Communication of Oligarchy Winslow’s research shows that American society has come to view billionaires as transcendent figures – individuals whose success in business qualifies them to lead in politics – a mindset that is not new. The Gilded Age of the late 19th century saw figures like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller wield enormous economic and political power, shaping legislation to favor their interests. Winslow’s research traces this historical precedent, suggesting that today’s tech titans are the latest iteration of a long-standing trend. Perhaps the most intriguing question Winslow raises is not just how oligarchy and its fusion of wealth and governance has taken root, but why the American public has been so willing to accept it as natural – perhaps even beneficial. “The arguments being made in public discourse encourage us to go along with it,” he said. “We’re being told, implicitly, that this is just how things work now.” Yet, these practices also reveal how the government serves the narrow interests of the ultra-wealthy, diverting resources from productive economic opportunities for the majority toward political wins that benefit a small, affluent minority, Winslow said. “What's so interesting about oligarchy now is that the cover has been ripped off, the veil has been thrown open and we’re not even hiding the fact that money gets you more influence,” he said. Ultimately, Winslow hopes his work will get people to be curious as to why Americans are now accepting oligarchy in the U.S. “The ways that the extremely wealthy are yielded political power is seemingly acceptable now, and that is a question that we all should be asking,” Winslow said. Looking to know more? Then let us help. To connect with Luke Winslow, simply contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.
In an age where social media promises to connect us, a new Baylor University study reveals a sobering paradox – the more time we spend interacting online, the lonelier we may feel. Researchers James A. Roberts, Ph.D., The Ben H. Williams Professor of Marketing in Baylor's Hankamer School of Business, and co-authors Philip Young, Ph.D., and Meredith David, Ph.D., analyzed a study that followed nearly 7,000 Dutch adults for nine years to understand how our digital habits shape well-being. Published in the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the Baylor study – The Epidemic of Loneliness: A Nine-Year Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Passive and Active Social Media Use on Loneliness – investigated how social media use impacts loneliness over time. This eye-opening research suggests that the very platforms designed to bring people together contribute to an "epidemic of loneliness." The findings showed that both passive and active social media use were associated with increased feelings of loneliness over time. While passive social media use – like browsing without interaction – predictably led to heightened loneliness, active use – which involved posting and engaging with others – also was linked to increased feelings of loneliness. These results suggest that the quality of digital interactions may not fulfill the social needs that are met in face-to-face communication. “This research underscores the complexity of social media’s impact on mental health,” Roberts said. “While social media offers unprecedented access to online communities, it appears that extensive use – whether active or passive – does not alleviate feelings of loneliness and may, in fact, intensify them.” The study also found a two-way relationship between loneliness and social media use. "It appears that a continuous feedback loop exists between the two,” Roberts said. “Lonely people turn to social media to address their feelings, but it is possible that such social media use merely fans the flames of loneliness." The findings emphasize an urgent need for further research into the effects of digital interaction, underlining the essential role of in-person connections in supporting well-being. This study also adds a valuable perspective to the conversation on how digital habits influence mental health, offering insights to shape future mental health initiatives, policies and guidelines for healthier social media use. Are you covering social media and its impact on people? Then let us help. These experts are available to speak with media, simply click or contact Shelby Cefaratti-Bertin, M.A, Assistant Director of Media and Public Relations now to arrange an interview today.
The Battle Begins - How Long will Trump's Trade Wars Last Between China, Canada and Mexico?
It has begun. March 04 signaled the first day of what could be a long and drawn out trade war between America and it's two closest neighbors and trading partners - Canada and Mexico. President Trump also doubled the tariff he slapped last month on Chinese products to 20%. Markets are reeling, politicians are scrambling and the world is watching to see how the tariffs on Mexican and Canadian imports will affect consumers and the economy. In Canada, the reaction was swift. Businesses pulled American bourbon, wine and other imported spirits from store shelves along. Canada also threatened to turn off imported power that keeps the lights on and factories running in states like Michigan, Minnesota and New York. As well, Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau announced immediate retaliatory measures. Trudeau said Canada will not back down from a fight in the face of "completely bogus and completely unjustified" trade action that has the potential to ruin bilateral relations and prompt job losses, economic devastation and higher inflation on both sides of the border. Trudeau has already slapped tariffs on an initial tranche of $30 billion worth of American goods and promised $125 billion more will face levies in three weeks' time. He said more, non-tariff measures are coming if Trump doesn't immediately back down. Trudeau said Trump is doing something "very dumb" by attacking Canada like this, given there will be serious ramifications for American workers and consumers with higher prices on everything from food, car parts and fertilizers to pharmaceuticals and paper products. March 04 - CBC News Meanwhile, there have been some indicators that President Trump may be willing to negotiate. President Donald Trump will “probably” announce tariff compromise deals with Canada and Mexico soon, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said Tuesday. The potential agreements would likely involve scaling back at least part of Trump’s brand new 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, he added. Lutnick’s comments came minutes after the U.S. stock market limped to a close for a second day of sharp declines, spurred at least in part by investors’ fears that Trump’s aggressive policies will ignite a crippling trade war. After his remarks, U.S. stock futures tied to all three major averages rose. The compromises with Canada and Mexico will likely be revealed as soon as Wednesday, Lutnick said on “Fox Business.” March 04- CNBC News There's a lot of speculation out there - and lingering questions: What key American industries will benefit, which ones will suffer? When and will consumers see price hikes at the stores? Will there be a lasting negative impact felt on the American economy? What does this mean for the USMCA that was currently in place? If you're a journalist covering tariffs and the trade war - then let us help. William J. Luther, Ph.D., is an associate professor of economics at Florida Atlantic University, director of the American Institute for Economic Research’s Sound Money Project, and an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute’s Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives William is available to speak with media. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today
Managing cyber risk is no longer a technical necessity but also a strategic imperative in global business. As companies are more interconnected and reliant on artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Things, and the rest of the digital ecosystem, they are exposed to greater opportunities and risks. In this video, Senior Managing Director and cybersecurity expert Denis Calderone shares topics covered in the 2025 J.S. Held Global Risk Report focused on managing cyber risk in the year ahead. The global regulatory landscape is evolving rapidly in response to the increasing severity of cyber threats. Governments and regulatory bodies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the European Union (EU), and the U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA), have introduced cybersecurity mandates that require businesses to strengthen their defenses, improve incident reporting, and ensure compliance with new industry standards. The 2025 Global Risk Report by J.S. Held provides perspectives on these regulatory shifts, helping businesses navigate the complexities of cyber risk and compliance. The growing frequency and severity of cyberattacks are reshaping how businesses approach risk management. The J.S. Held 2025 Global Risk Report explores key issues facing business today, including: Business Interruption from Cyber Incidents: High-profile cases like Change Healthcare’s 2024 breach demonstrate how cyberattacks can halt operations, lead to regulatory scrutiny, and result in massive financial losses. Reputational and Legal Fallout: Cyber incidents can trigger lawsuits and damage a company’s reputation, often leading to prolonged trust recovery periods with customers and investors. Loss of Sensitive Data: Data breaches can expose critical information, including personal, financial, and proprietary data, amplifying risks of identity theft and fraud. Tightening Regulatory Landscape: New cybersecurity laws, such as the EU’s NIS2 Directive and Cyber Resilience Act, alongside the US SEC’s disclosure rules, demand stricter compliance from businesses in key sectors. Complexities in Cyber Insurance: Many companies lack clarity on whether their policies cover ransomware or meet legal and operational needs, leaving them exposed to potential financial risks. Ransomware Dilemmas and Legal Risks: Paying a ransom may violate international sanctions, creating additional legal complications for organizations already dealing with cyberattacks. Proactive Cybersecurity Enhancements: Companies implementing advanced cybersecurity measures like MFA, EDR, and immutable backup systems improve their defenses and reduce risks of disruption. AI-Powered Threat Detection: Artificial intelligence enables companies to identify fraud and cyberattacks faster by analyzing patterns and anomalies in real time, minimizing damage, and reducing costs. Increased Demand for Cyber Insurance: As companies across industries seek better coverage, insurers have opportunities to innovate new products, though exclusionary clauses are becoming more common. Business Continuity and Resilience: Organizations with strong cyber hygiene, incident response plans, and dependency mapping are better prepared for attacks and may benefit from reduced insurance premiums. Cybersecurity risk is just one of the five key areas analyzed in the J.S. Held 2025 Global Risk Report. Other topics include sustainability, supply chain, cryptocurrency and digital assets, AI and data regulations. If you have any questions or would like to further discuss the risks and opportunities outlined in the report, email GlobalRiskReport@jsheld.com. To connect with Denis Calderone simply click on his icon now. For any other media inquiries - contact : Kristi L. Stathis, J.S. Held +1 786 833 4864 Kristi.Stathis@JSHeld.com
Canada’s RRSP Program Has Too Many Jobs
Summary: Since its inception in 1957, the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) has been a cornerstone of Canada’s retirement system. However, the RRSP has taken on roles far beyond its original mandate, notably through the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP) and the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP). Although these programs provide short-term benefits, they significantly damage the long-term health of Canadians' retirement savings. This article explores how these additional roles are sabotaging retirement savings, highlights statistics about the state of RRSPs today, and discusses the disastrous impact these trends will have on future retirees. While listening to a recent economic presentation by Don Drummond, TD Bank's Chief Economist at the Mortgage Professionals Canada conference, the following stat stood out to me: "Median RRSP savings are $146K (RRSPs have been in existence for 6 decades)" I was stunned by how low this value was. Even with a government pension, in today's economic climate, to achieve a successful retirement, we need more than $146K saved. This prompted me to explore how the average value of RRSPs in Canada could be so low after some of us have had as much as 60 years to save. The average senior aged 65 in Canada receives $18,197 per year from OAS and CPP. If qualified for GIS, they would receive another $15,186 annually, for a total of $33,338 annually. This isn't much income, especially for homeowners who must pay for property taxes, utilities, upkeep, and maintenance. How it All Began At inception, the RRSP was called a Registered Retirement Annuity and was created in 1957. At the time, Canadians could contribute up to 10% of their income to a maximum of $2,500 annually. The goal was to give all Canadians the same tax benefits as members of registered employer-sponsored pension plans. Benefits of the RRSP Plan 1. Tax-Deferral: Contributions to an RRSP are tax-deductible, which can reduce your tax bill. 2. Tax-Free Growth: Your savings grow tax-free while the money is in the plan. 3. Retroactive: You can carry forward any unused contribution room to future years. The Multitasking Disaster Studies show that people are dreadful at multitasking; the same is true of government programs. Here is where the program went wrong. In 1992, the Home Buyer’s Plan (HBP) was made more flexible, which allowed first-time homebuyers to withdraw RRSP funds to buy a house. Then, in 1999, the Lifelong Learning Plan (LPP) was introduced, which permitted withdrawals to pay for education. The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) was not introduced in 1957 alongside the Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) creation. Instead, the HBP was introduced in 1992 as a federal initiative to help Canadians buy their first homes by allowing them to withdraw funds from their RRSPs without tax penalties as long as they met specific conditions. Here's a timeline of crucial HBP withdrawal limits since its inception: Timeline of HBP and LLP Withdrawal Limits: 1992 - Introduction of the HBP • Maximum Withdrawal Limit: $20,000 per individual. • Purpose: To help first-time homebuyers purchase or build a home. 1999 – Introduction of Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) • The annual withdrawal limit is $10,000 per individual • The lifetime withdrawal maximum is $20,000 per individual 2009 - First HBP increase • New Limit: $25,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising housing costs. 2019 - Second HBP Increase • New Limit: $35,000 per individual. • Announced in the 2019 federal budget to support affordability for first-time homebuyers. 2019 -HBP Enhancement for Life Events • The HBP was expanded to allow individuals experiencing a marriage or common-law partnership breakdown to participate, even if they were not first-time homebuyers. 2024 - Recent increase • New Limit: $60,000 per individual. • The increase was introduced as part of federal budget changes to reflect rising costs. A Flawed Strategy The Home Buyers' Plan (HBP) and Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP) were introduced in Canada as tools to make housing and education more accessible. While well-intentioned, these programs effectively allow individuals to borrow from their future retirement savings—a strategy that can have significant negative consequences. Ask any high school economics student, and they will tell you that compromising two of the three main elements (principle and time) in investing growth will lead to a disappointing return. Here is the formula: principle X interest + time = compounded return. Are We Borrowing From the Future to Pay for Today? The Problem with the Home Buyers’ Plan (HBP): Addressing Housing Affordability at the Expense of Retirement The HBP permits individuals to withdraw up to $60,000 from their RRSP to buy a first home. In an environment of rising house prices, this measure may help buyers cobble together a down payment, but it drains retirement funds. The funds are unavailable to grow tax-free over decades, diminishing the compounding returns essential for retirement security. The Problem with the Lifelong Learning Plan (LLP): Financing Education by Sacrificing Retirement The LLP allows up to $20,000 in RRSP withdrawals to fund education, which can help individuals upskill. However, education often doesn’t yield immediate returns, and the withdrawn funds lose their growth potential, including the compounded returns. Why This Harms Future Retirees Issue #1: Loss of Compounding Growth Withdrawals disrupt the power of compounding, which is vital for retirement savings. For example, $35,000 left in an RRSP for 25 years at a 6% annual return could grow to over $150,000. If that same $35,000 were withdrawn 15 years ago and repaid over the same period as required by the HBP program, it would be worth $54,311, a loss of $95,689 Issue #2: Repayment Struggles While repayments are required, life’s expenses (mortgage, childcare, loans) often make it hard to repay on schedule. Failure to repay means the amount withdrawn is added to taxable income, further reducing the effectiveness of the programs. Issue #3: Insufficient Savings Most Canadians are already under-saving for retirement. Encouraging them to dip into their RRSPs exacerbates this shortfall. Two Different Problems. One Harmful Solution Housing Affordability Rising house prices are driven by supply-demand imbalances, speculation, and policy failures—not a lack of down payments. Increasing the HBP withdrawal limit does nothing to address the root causes of affordability, but it may drive prices higher by giving buyers more purchasing power. Retirement Security Retirement savings should be preserved and grown to ensure financial stability in later years. Programs like HBP and LLP blur the line between short-term needs and long-term planning. Why Would our Government Do This? Political Expediency Housing affordability and access to education are politically sensitive issues. Allowing individuals to tap into their RRSPs is a cost-neutral policy for the government (unlike direct subsidies or programs). Policies like these help politicians get elected or stay in office. And in proper political form, these policies only tell half the story. Vote for us because we will help you buy your first home, which is a great campaign strategy. Vote for us because we will make it look like we help you buy your first home when, in fact, we will set up a program that will allow you to borrow from yourself at the cost of your retirement, which is political suicide. Short-Sighted Economic Policies Policymakers may believe that homeowners and educated individuals are more financially secure, even if their retirement savings are compromised. The logic might be that owning a home or having better job prospects could mitigate future hardship. Assuming Home Equity is a Safety Net The government might assume that homeownership ensures financial stability in retirement. However, this overlooks that rising housing costs often mean seniors have high debt levels or are "house rich but cash poor." The Bigger Problem with the HBP and LLP Programs: No Warnings or Education Given to Canadians Neither the HBP nor the LLP adequately informs individuals of the long-term consequences of their decisions. To make matters worse, the participants of these programs will likely realize the impact once it is too late to take action. People considering retirement are often in their late 50s to early 60s, past their prime saving years. Borrowing from retirement accounts may seem like “borrowing from yourself,” but this lost growth can never be recouped. Many Canadians are not well enough informed to assess these trade-offs, leading to decisions that harm their financial future. In Case You’re Thinking, These Seniors Have Inadequate Savings - But at They At Least their Homes. The HBP and LLP programs may reflect a government view that seniors would be better off owning a home than relying solely on inadequate savings. But this is flawed for a number of reasons: A home is not a liquid asset—it cannot pay for groceries or healthcare. Also, Seniors with insufficient retirement savings often need help with financial distress despite owning property. They sometimes need reverse mortgages or sell their homes out of desperation. An Unfortunate Misguided Solution Rather than “quick fixes” that appear to solve immediate challenges while creating long-term problems, the Federal government should instead focus on longer-term, systemic solutions For housing: Governments need to curb speculative investments and provide targeted assistance for first-time buyers. Plus they need to focus on programs that increase housing supply, such as income tax incentives for homeowners to build accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These units could be rented out or used for caregivers. Or adopt a policy allowing first-time home buyers to not pay tax on their first $250,000 of income. First-time home buyers could use the tax savings as a down payment. For Education: Governments need to expand grant programs and low-interest loans to prevent reliance on retirement funds. This will not only help us increase the number of skilled workers to fill critical gaps in vital sectors such as technology, healthcare engineering and the trades. It will also contribute to a higher GDP and build a more sustainable tax base for future generations. Encouraging Canadians to steal from their future is not a sustainable strategy. Retirement savings should be viewed as sacred - not a piggy bank for solving unrelated issues. Don’t Retire … Re-Wire! Sue
