Fear Of Running Out (FORO)

How neuroscience explains how we sabotage spending in retirement

Mar 28, 2025

10 min

Sue Pimento

Summary: The article explores the Fear of Running Out (FORO), a psychological phenomenon that stems from anxiety about resource scarcity, particularly in retirement. FORO is especially common among seniors who fear depleting their financial, physical, or emotional resources as they age. Unlike FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), FORO focuses on the depletion of existing assets, often leading to cautious decision-making, delayed spending, or self-sabotaging behaviours like excessive frugality or social withdrawal. While some instances of FORO are valid—such as retirees who underestimated their living expenses—others are more psychological, with financially secure individuals still feeling paralyzed by fear and unable to enjoy their retirement fully.  There are practical solutions, but they require more than just emotional support.  We also need to address the lack of formal retirement planning and literacy.  Most retirees have insufficient knowledge about tax-efficient asset drawdowns, and the limited guidance from financial institutions exacerbates these fears.


We’ve all heard of FOMO (fear of missing out)—that nagging anxiety when everyone else seems to be at a fabulous party while you’re at home scrolling through social media, eating last night’s leftovers straight from the container.


As we age, the fears we carry evolve—and for some, they get a little louder, quirkier, and much more challenging to ignore. A unique set of acronyms has emerged for older adults to describe these creeping anxieties. Allow me to introduce you to the unholy trinity of aging fears:


FOGO (Fear of Getting Old): This one typically kicks in around our mid-to-late 50s when the realization hits and panic sets in: "Wait... I’m not young anymore?" Have I saved enough? Have I experienced enough? Am I running out of time? Cue the classic symptoms: splurging on bright red sports cars, embarking on bucket-list trips to exotic locales, or dating someone who knows what "Netflix and chill" really means, not cozying up with a movie. And yes, sometimes while still married. It’s all part of the "midlife crisis" package—a desperate attempt to outrun Father Time. But let’s be honest: The comb-over isn’t fooling anyone.


FOBO (Fear of Being Old): This stage sneaks in during your 70s, as your "best before" date blinks ominously on life’s metaphorical packaging. Many enter into a state of "defensive denial," 

refusing to acknowledge their age or any limitations, insisting they are still as capable as ever, even when struggling with specific tasks.  In this stage, people can demonstrate "overcompensation - Desperately trying to prove they’re still youthful.  Many will refuse to use mobility aids or decline assistance from family or caregivers out of pride.  Others will shut down anyone who dares to suggest they are old. “Me? Old? Please. I just got a brand-new hip last year!”


FORO (Fear of Running Out): Now we get to the show's real star. FORO enters the spotlight as you thoughtfully consider retirement and suddenly takes over the plot. It’s the fear of running out—of money, energy, time, or maybe even snacks at movie night. This one’s a relentless buzz in the background of every decision, from how you spend your savings to whether you should buy name-brand peanut butter or settle for the generic jar. If left unchecked, FORO can steal the joy out of today by worrying too much about tomorrow. We have all heard the stories of people passing away with millions of dollars in the bank, yet they lived in squalor, afraid to spend their money.


Now, FORO can manifest in all kinds of ways. Some are almost funny in hindsight. Remember the pandemic toilet paper wars of 2020? Or that panic at a party when you’re convinced you don’t have enough food for your guests, only to find yourself drowning in leftovers? But for seniors in retirement, FORO often takes on a much more serious tone—like running out of money, energy, or health as the years go by. These thoughts can be terrifying for the aged. 


And sometimes, this fear is warranted. Imagine a retiree who underestimated their living expenses, burned through savings too quickly, and now faces the stark reality of financial insecurity. That’s a legitimate case of FORO that demands attention, planning, and maybe a shift in lifestyle.


But other times, FORO is more like a shadow in the dark—unsettling at first glance but harmless once illuminated. For example, some seniors with reasonable pensions, savings, and even supplemental income streams might still be too paralyzed by the fear of running out to take that dream vacation or help their grandchildren with school. In this situation, it is doubtful that there will ever be enough. This type of FORO can cause harm through neglect. This unfounded FORO can keep people from genuinely thriving during their golden years.


There are well-documented cases of individuals who have perished from thirst in the desert while carrying full bottles of water. They were too frightened of running out of water to save their lives by drinking it. Most of us shake our heads and think we would never do that, but FORO represents a compelling fear that can lead to self-sabotaging behaviours. If FORO could result in death in the aforementioned desert scenario, how might it influence decisions regarding our significant assets, such as our homes? Unfortunately, many retirees pinch pennies and go without while living in homes with considerable equity, refusing to access it for fear of running out (FORO).


So, how do we know when FORO is a valid warning signal and when it’s just a psychological hurdle? And, more importantly, how can we tackle this fear to ensure it doesn’t stand in the way of living a joyful, fulfilled retirement? Read on; we’ll dive deeper into the concept of FORO—why it exists, how it can sneak into our decision-making, and, most importantly, actionable strategies to manage it.


Remember, your golden years shouldn’t be ruled by fear—they should be a time to shine.


The Fear of Running Out (FORO) is a psychological concept rooted in anxiety about scarcity or insufficiency, particularly concerning essential resources like money, time, or opportunities. It's akin to FOMO (Fear of Missing Out), but instead emphasizes the anxiety of depleting one's existing resources rather than worrying about missed experiences.


While FORO has not been as widely studied as FOMO in academic circles, the term has gained traction in financial and psychological contexts, particularly regarding retirement planning, economic behaviour, and decision-making. Although it’s unclear who explicitly popularized the term “Fear of Running Out,” it has become a recurring theme in financial planning discussions and among behavioural psychologists studying how individuals manage uncertainty and risk.


The Psychology of FORO


FORO is deeply rooted in psychological concepts of scarcity and loss aversion, both key ideas in behavioural economics. Loss aversion, central to Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s prospect theory, highlights that the pain of losing something outweighs the joy of gaining an equivalent amount. In the context of retirement, the fear of running out of money reflects this principle—financial depletion carries the weight of losing essential aspects like security, independence, and quality of life, making it feel particularly distressing.


The work of researchers like Eldar Shafir and Senthil Mullainathan on the scarcity mindset further illuminates this phenomenon. They suggest that when people are preoccupied with avoiding resource depletion, they often develop tunnel vision, focusing narrowly on the immediate issue. For seniors worried about outliving their savings, this can manifest as excessive caution or hesitation in deciding to spend or draw down resources, even when such concerns may not be warranted. Faced with this dilemma, some seniors develop inertia, choose to do nothing, and ignore the situation altogether.


According to a 2024 report by the Ontario Securities Commission, 13% of pre-retirees and 19% of retirees among Canadians aged 50 and older have a formal written retirement plan, which is a significant cause for concern.


This reflects a widespread lack of structured financial and retirement literacy. Without a clear strategy, many individuals may not fully understand how to manage their resources effectively throughout retirement, particularly when it comes to de-accumulating (spending) assets in a tax-efficient manner. We can quickly start to see why many older Canadians have FORO.


One key issue is that minimal accessible information exists on strategies for drawing down retirement savings to minimize taxes while ensuring long-term financial security. For example, the timing and order in which individuals withdraw from registered accounts like RRSPs, TFSAs, non-registered investments, or access their home equity can dramatically impact their overall tax burden and available income in retirement. Unfortunately, this type of guidance is often overlooked in financial planning resources, leaving most retirees guessing how much money is enough.


The financial industry also contributes to this gap. Banks and many financial advisors are primarily compensated through commissions tied to the sale and management of investments, such as mutual funds or other financial products. This model does not incentivize them to provide comprehensive advice on strategically spending down savings. As a result, many seniors are left without the critical guidance they need to navigate the complexities of de-accumulation, leading to suboptimal emotionally driven decisions and increased financial stress.


This lack of tailored advice is particularly problematic for Canadians who rely on paying off their homes as their primary financial plan. While homeownership is a valuable asset, it is not liquid, and converting it into usable retirement income can be challenging without proper planning. The fear of running out of money (FORO) becomes especially acute for these individuals, as they may not have the financial and retirement literacy or tools to make informed decisions about how to fund their retirement, especially concerning using home equity.


In short, the low prevalence of formal retirement plans, insufficient education on tax-efficient de-accumulation, and the misaligned incentives of financial institutions significantly disadvantage seniors. This gap exacerbates financial insecurity and leaves many retirees vulnerable to the psychological and practical challenges of FORO, particularly those who rely on home equity, an illiquid asset, as their primary financial safety net.


Addressing these issues requires a broader emphasis on financial and retirement literacy and unbiased, accessible advice tailored to retirees' unique needs.



Key Components of FORO:


1. Scarcity Mindset—Seniors facing FORO might develop a scarcity mindset, which can lead to overly frugal behaviours. For example, they may reduce spending on essential support services or forego social activities to protect their savings, even when financially secure.


2. Emotional Triggers—FORO is tied to deeper emotional needs like safety, independence, and legacy. At its core is the fear that people will have nowhere to live, won’t have enough money to care for themselves, and will not have any money left to leave a legacy.


3. Decision Paralysis - FORO can cause retirees to delay allocating resources, from downsizing a home to sourcing pension-type income. This indecision can lead to missed opportunities or unnecessary sacrifices.


4. Overcompensation—In some cases, the fear of running out can lead to self-sabotage behaviours like hoarding money or withdrawing from social activities. These behaviours reduce quality of life and increase feelings of isolation.


The Solution:


A comprehensive approach that combines emotional support, practical planning, and mindset adjustments is essential to helping retirees overcome FORO. By addressing their fears and financial realities, they can gain the confidence to enjoy their retirement years without worrying about running out of money.


1. Acknowledgement and Understanding - Listen and empathize: Begin by genuinely listening to the retiree's concerns, recognizing that FORO is an emotional issue tied to deep-seated fears about security and independence.


Normalize the fear: Reassure them that the fear of running out of money is common, especially in retirement. Explain the reasons behind this fear:

  • Retirees often can’t return to work to supplement income.
  • Lifespans and healthcare costs are unpredictable, creating uncertainty.
  • The transition from accumulating wealth to spending it feels unnatural to many.


2. Develop a Retirement Spending Plan—Create a tailored plan. Outline a sustainable spending strategy aligning with the client's lifestyle, goals, and resources:

  • Leverage expertise: Collaborate with their bank manager or financial advisor to develop a realistic budget covering essential and discretionary expenses.
  • Focus on balance: Establish a balance between meeting current needs and maintaining future security.


3. Generate Pension-Like Income - Explore income solutions: Help them research ways to create predictable income streams, such as:

  • Purchasing an annuity to convert part of their savings or equity into guaranteed income.
  • Consider equity mortgage products for additional cash flow if they have sufficient home equity.
  • Address misconceptions: Explain how these tools can reduce uncertainty and provide peace of mind.


4. Emergency Fund - Health care may be needed later in life and can be costly. Setting money aside for unexpected expenses will offer great comfort and peace of mind.


5. Mindset Shifts - Reframe perspectives: Encourage retirees to focus on the opportunities their resources provide rather than fixating on worst-case scenarios:

  • Promote enjoyment: Remind them that retirement is a time to enjoy the fruits of their labour, not live in constant fear. Highlight the importance of self-care and experiences that bring joy and fulfillment.


6.  Legacy Planning -  Address legacy concerns: Help them create an estate plan or designate resources for loved ones and causes they care about, ensuring their wishes are honoured:

  • Provide clarity: Show how planning for a legacy can reduce anxiety about leaving something behind while meeting their current needs.


The Fear of Running Out is more than just a financial concern—it’s a deeply emotional and psychological issue for seniors facing the unpredictability of retirement. By addressing this fear in practical and empathetic ways, we can give retirees the tools and confidence to enjoy their golden years without worrying about depletion or feeling like they need to stockpile financial "water bottles" for a drought that may never come.


And there you have it—FORO might be a formidable guest at the retirement table, but it doesn’t have to steal the show. By addressing the emotional roots of this fear, creating practical plans, and shifting the focus to what’s possible, retirees can turn their golden years into precisely that: golden. Remember, retirement isn’t about tiptoeing around scarcity; it’s about celebrating a lifetime of hard work and savouring the moments that make life rich. So, let’s leave FORO in the shadows where it belongs and step confidently into a retirement that truly shines.


And let’s be honest, no one wants their legacy to read: "Lived frugally, died rich, and missed the Boat to the Caribbean."



Don't retire---Re-Wire!


Sue

Connect with:
Sue Pimento

Sue Pimento

Founder | CEO

Focused on financial literacy and retirement strategies. Authoring new book on home equity strategies to help seniors find financial freedom

Pension ReformInterest RatesHome EquityMortgagesReverse Mortgages
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Retire with Equity

Downsizing: The Biggest Retirement Myth We Keep Repeating featured image

9 min

Downsizing: The Biggest Retirement Myth We Keep Repeating

I have a friend who announced she was downsizing the way some people announce a move to Tuscany. Lightness. Optimism. A touch of smugness. Six months later, she called me from her condo and whispered, “Sue… I think I bought a very expensive closet with a concierge.” Welcome to downsizing, the most celebrated, most recommended, and most wildly misunderstood retirement strategy in Canada. Like most things that sound simple, it works beautifully until you look a little closer. I spent a decade in the reverse mortgage industry watching this play out. Clients would come in — smart, capable, financially savvy people — who had spent years being told their retirement plan was simple: sell the big house, buy something smaller, pocket the difference, and ride off into the sunset. Many of them were sitting across from me because that plan had not worked the way anyone promised. The advice was decades old. Their lives were not. Two Retirees. Same Strategy. Completely Different Outcomes. Let me introduce you to Carol and Robert, whose stories say everything. Carol did everything right. She sold her long-time home, bought a sleek condo, freed up some equity, and checked every box on the “responsible retirement” list. On paper, it was a perfect move. In practice, she lost her community, her routines, her doctor, and a piece of her identity. She found herself sitting in a condo surrounded by unpacked boxes, wondering how a smart financial decision could feel so much like a personal loss. Robert also did everything right, but his story unfolded differently. He sold his home, moved closer to family, bought something smaller, and banked a meaningful sum. What he gained had very little to do with the numbers. He gained connection, belonging, and a life that felt fuller, not smaller. The strategy was identical. The outcomes were not. That is the uncomfortable myth about downsizing. It is not a formula. It is a life decision disguised as a financial one. The Downsizing Math People Love to Quote For decades, downsizing earned its reputation honestly. Retirement was shorter, often fifteen to twenty years. Pensions were stable. Housing was affordable. Families lived closer together. Selling your home and buying something smaller freed up real capital and meaningfully cut expenses. It was practical, logical, and often the right call. Fast forward to today, and almost none of those conditions still apply. Retirement now runs twenty-five to thirty-five years — a span longer than most people’s careers were when this advice was invented. Defined benefit pensions have largely become a public sector privilege. In the 1970s, 90% of private-sector workers with a workplace pension had a defined-benefit plan. Today, that figure has dropped to roughly 40%, and that’s only among the shrinking share who have any pension plan at all (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2025). Housing prices have surged far beyond income growth.  Real estate now accounts for over half of household wealth in Canada. Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, the average Canadian at sixty-five has approximately $272,000 in retirement savings, while estimates for a comfortable retirement often exceed $1 million. That is not a gap. That is a canyon. This gap turned the family home into something it was never designed to be. Not just a place to live, but a retirement plan. And once that shift happened, we collectively made a convenient assumption: the only way to access that wealth is to sell the house. That assumption is where things begin to unravel. The four assumptions that made downsizing work are no longer as reliable as they once were. 1. Smaller homes are cheaper. In many markets, the opposite is true. Smaller properties often command higher prices per square foot, and retirees now compete with first-time buyers and investors for the same limited inventory. That charming condo may cost nearly as much as the house you just sold. 2. Selling releases meaningful capital. Transaction costs alone can consume eight to twelve percent of the home’s value. Commissions, legal fees, land transfer taxes, moving costs, repairs. What looks like a windfall on paper can shrink dramatically before you ever see the money. 3. New home costs will be lower and more predictable. Condo fees, special assessments, and rising insurance costs tend to quietly escalate. What was supposed to simplify your financial life can quietly complicate it. 4. The process is straightforward. Market timing plays a much larger role than most people realize. Selling in a soft market while buying in a strong one can erode value on both sides. Downsizing is not just a financial decision. It is a transaction with real timing risk. When all four of these assumptions weaken at once, the outcome can be very different from what was promised. And yet, despite the evidence, the advice has not changed. We still tell people to “just downsize,” as though the calendar hasn’t moved since 1987. Nostalgia is not a strategy. The Part Nobody Puts in the Spreadsheet Here is what the financial projections consistently leave out: the emotional weight of this decision is enormous, and most people dramatically underestimate it. We are not talking about a slight reluctance to pack boxes. We are talking about the deep, visceral human attachment to home. The place where you raised your kids, hosted Thanksgiving, walked the dog, and knew every creak in every floorboard. The urge to age in place is powerful, primal, and not remotely irrational. And when we dismiss it with a spreadsheet, we are not being helpful. We are being reckless. And here is the harder truth: to make the numbers actually work, people often need to move two or three hours away into smaller communities where housing is genuinely cheaper. That means leaving your neighbourhood, your friends, your church, your yoga class, your doctor of twenty years, and your very carefully curated hairdresser. (Finding a new hairdresser in a rural town? That is not a life transition. That is a medical emergency.) Re-establishing a full support network in an unfamiliar community is daunting and exhausting work for anyone at any age. It often requires the senior to resume regular driving, something many are quietly hoping to scale back. And then there is healthcare. Access to specialists, familiar family physicians, and hospital services is non-negotiable for most people over sixty-five. It does not figure neatly into a spreadsheet, but it absolutely figures into the decision. I have never once met a senior who said, “You know what, I’m really glad I had to find a new GP at 72.” The urge to stay put almost always wins. Here is something worth sitting with: every older person knows what it is like to be young, but no young person knows what it is like to be old. That asymmetry matters enormously in this conversation. A well-meaning adult child running scenarios on a laptop has never felt the specific, irreplaceable comfort of a neighbourhood they have lived in for thirty years. Really listening — not just problem-solving — can bridge that gap. Because retirement is a family affair. And the families who navigate it best are the ones where everyone feels heard before anyone pulls out a spreadsheet. The Conversation That Actually Needs to Happen Financing retirement is not a binary choice. Downsize or don’t. That framing does everyone a disservice, and spoiler alert: the senior will almost always choose not to downsize. The real question is what happens next, because “stay put and hope for the best” is not a retirement plan. It’s a wish. The more useful conversation is about how to create cash flow while staying put. And that conversation is a minefield if you are not prepared. Here is the first obstacle: suggesting any kind of loan to finance retirement is a spectacular lead balloon. These are people who spent forty years lecturing their kids to pay off their mortgages and eliminate debt. Debt is the villain in their financial story. It is a bug, not a feature. So when you walk in and suggest that borrowing against their home might be the solution, their internal switchboard immediately puts that call on permanent hold. And if you mention a reverse mortgage? The Cybertruck of mortgages. The product everyone has an opinion about and almost no one fully understands. You will get one of two responses: the “talk to the hand” or the look usually reserved for the person who reheats leftover fish in the office microwave. Is some of that resistance rational? Absolutely. But is some of it just fear in a hat — old anxiety dressed up as financial principle? Also yes. This is why the key is to ask, not tell. The moment you lead with a product, you’ve lost the room. Lead with questions instead: • What are your actual cash flow needs? • How are you planning to meet them? • Are you carrying debt that is quietly strangling your monthly budget? • Do you need a lump sum, or do you need more reliable monthly income? The answers look very different, and they lead to very different solutions. If the goal is to free up monthly cash flow, paying off high-interest debt using home equity may deliver an immediate and meaningful result. A home equity line of credit can do that cleanly. If the goal is ongoing income, a reverse mortgage can provide tax-free monthly payments or a lump sum without requiring a move or a monthly repayment. If there is room on the property, a secondary suite or an addition can generate rental income and potentially add long-term value. For those comfortable thinking a few steps ahead, using a reverse mortgage or HELOC to purchase an annuity or a small rental property creates a stream of sustainable income that has nothing to do with square footage. None of these options shows up in the standard “should I downsize?” conversation. They should. The biggest financial mistake most retirees make is not the decision they choose. It’s the options they were never shown. Back to Carol and Robert Their outcomes were not the result of luck or timing. They were the result of alignment. Robert moved toward what he wanted. Carol moved away from what she felt she should. One decision created a sense of expansion. The other created a sense of loss. No spreadsheet captures that distinction. But it is the distinction that matters most. Downsizing is neither inherently good nor bad. It is simply a tool. When it is driven by clear goals, realistic assumptions, and an honest accounting of both the financial and emotional realities, it can be genuinely transformative. When it is driven by habit, pressure, or advice that stopped aging well some time ago, it tends to lead somewhere Carol knows well. So before you follow the script, pause long enough to ask a different question. Not “Should I downsize?” but “What do I actually need, and what are all the ways I can get there?” Retirement is not about having less space. It is about having more life. The right strategy is the one that gets you there without sacrificing everything that makes life worth living in the first place. Your community. Your doctor. Your Sunday routine. Your hairdresser who finally knows exactly what you mean by “just a trim.” Downsizing is a tool. Like a hammer. Enormously useful when you actually need a hammer. Spectacularly unhelpful when what you really need is a different plan.  The goal was never to end up with less. It was to end up with enough. Ask better questions. You’ll get better answers. And maybe keep your hairdresser’s number. Sue Don’t Retire…Re-Wire!!! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend, or a loved one. It will be on store shelves on September 8, 2026. You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore.

MEDIA ADVISORY: Your Retirement Reset Book featured image

1 min

MEDIA ADVISORY: Your Retirement Reset Book

Cover art has been finalized and Your Retirement Reset (ECW Press) is now heading to print ahead of its September 8, 2026 release date. Pre-orders are now available on the ECW Press website. Written for Canadians navigating the realities of modern retirement — and the adult children supporting them — Your Retirement Reset delivers a clear, practical roadmap for converting home equity and other assets into lasting financial security. It tackles the defining challenges of today's retirement landscape: longer lifespans, eroding purchasing power, vanishing pensions, and the near-universal desire to age in place. Susan Pimento brings decades of experience in the financial industry to a conversation that's long overdue — one that goes beyond saving to address how Canadians can strategically and safely spend what they've built. Susan Pimento is available for media interviews and speaking engagements. To arrange, contact: Jennifer Smith ECW Press jsmith@ecwpress.com

When the Cheque Stops Coming: Canada Post, Seniors, and the Quiet Cost of Modernization featured image

7 min

When the Cheque Stops Coming: Canada Post, Seniors, and the Quiet Cost of Modernization

There’s an old line that has saved more awkward conversations than most of us care to admit: “The cheque is in the mail.” It has been used to buy time, soften bad news, and occasionally stretch the definition of truth. But it worked because, deep down, everyone believed the premise. The mail would come. Eventually. Reliably. Without negotiation. That quiet assumption carried a surprising amount of weight — especially for the 79-year-old navigating an icy driveway. Now, it seems, even that assumption is up for review. I understand the economic argument. Big Losses: The official Canada Post 2024 Annual Report shows they have racked up $3.8 billion in losses since 2018.  Lower Letter Volumes: The shift to email has hit Canada Post hard.  Letter volumes have dropped dramatically.  Less in the mailbag equals far less revenue to offset costs.  Increasing Costs Factors: The number of Canadian addresses continues to grow. The math is not subtle, and change is clearly required.  But this deserves more attention.  Modernization is not the problem. Thoughtless modernization is. Cuts to Canada Post Service May Not Land Equally Not all Canadians experience change the same way, and this particular shift will land unevenly if proper consultation isn't done. We're getting older: According to Statistics Canada, nearly one in five Canadians is now over the age of 65, and that proportion continues to rise. A meaningful share of those older Canadians also live outside major urban centers. We're spread out geographically: Depending on how you measure it, we're also far apart compared to most other countries.  According to the Public Health Agency of Canada & the Vanier Institute of the Family, roughly one-quarter to one-third of seniors live in rural or small communities, where services are more dispersed, and distances are longer. Rural Canada is also aging faster than urban Canada. In other words, the places most likely to lose convenient access are often the places with the highest concentration of people who rely on it. This is not a niche issue. It is a structural one. The Real Issue Isn’t the Mailbox. It’s the Journey. Policy discussions tend to reduce this to a simple question of location. Move the mailbox, problem solved.  But the issue is not where the mailbox is. The issue is whether someone can get to it safely, consistently, and without turning a routine task into a risk calculation. I am thinking of a client. She is 79, sharp, organized, and fully in charge of her life. Her bills are paid on time, her paperwork is immaculate, and she has no interest in becoming dependent on anyone.  In the summer, she walks daily without a second thought. In the winter, she studies the ground before every step. Ice changes everything. A short walk becomes a decision. A slightly longer one becomes a concern. For her, a community mailbox is not a mild inconvenience. It is a variable she now has to manage.  That is the difference between designing for the ideal user and designing for the real one. Mail Still Matters More Than We Pretend There is a quiet assumption that everything important has already moved online. That assumption works well for people who are comfortable navigating digital systems. It does not work for everyone. For many seniors, mail remains the backbone of how they manage their lives. Pension statements, government notices, insurance documents, tax slips, prescription information, and replacement banking cards still arrive in envelopes, not inboxes. And yes, occasionally, an actual cheque. The phrase “the cheque is in the mail” may be fading, but the need behind it has not disappeared. For some Canadians, that envelope still represents income, security, and peace of mind. Digital systems are efficient when they work. When they do not, they can be frustrating and, at times, risky. One expired password or one convincing phishing email can turn a simple task into an afternoon of confusion. It is easy to underestimate the value of paper systems when you no longer rely on them. It is harder to replace them when you still do. Efficiency Has a Way of Moving Downward There is a pattern in modern service design worth naming. Call it effort laundering: the practice of shifting work from institutions to individuals in the name of efficiency. We see it in banking, where branches quietly disappear. We see it in healthcare systems that assume patients are comfortable online. We see it in customer service models built around apps and automated menus. And now we may see it in mail delivery. Where the service moves from your front door to a location you must reach yourself. For many Canadians, this is manageable. For others, it is not. When the burden of efficiency lands on those least able to absorb it, the system may be efficient on paper but inequitable in practice. If Change Is Necessary, It Should Be Smarter I understand that change is necessary. The cost differences between door-to-door delivery and centralized delivery are real, and the financial pressures on Canada Post are not going away. But the choice is not between doing nothing and eliminating access. There is a middle path, and other countries have already explored it. In Norway, proposed postal reforms included reducing delivery frequency to once per week. Following public consultation, the government stepped back earlier this year from that plan and maintained more frequent delivery, recognizing the impact on certain populations (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2026). In the United Kingdom, the regulator Ofcom has examined reducing delivery to 5 or even 3 days per week as a way to manage costs while preserving universal service (Ofcom, 2025). Research from Sweden and New Zealand shows that older adults rely more heavily on traditional mail systems than the general population, particularly for official and financial communication (Crew & Kleindorfer, 2012; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2021). These examples point to a practical conclusion. Reducing frequency can achieve savings without removing access. Eliminating access altogether is a different decision with different consequences. Canada Is Not Denmark Denmark has gone further than most, effectively ending traditional letter delivery after a dramatic decline in mail volumes of roughly 90 percent since 2000. The move is often cited as a model of modernization. It should be considered with caution. Denmark operates within a context of high digital adoption, a compact geography, and milder weather conditions. Notably, Canada’s digital divide among seniors is more pronounced than Denmark’s, meaning the proportion of older Canadians who cannot easily go online is higher to begin with. Even so, a significant number of Danish residents have been classified as "digitally exempt" and continue to rely on alternative arrangements to receive essential communications (PostNord, 2025). Canada is not Denmark. Our geography is larger, our winters are harsher, and our population is more dispersed.  Also, we play better hockey.  If Home Delivery Changes, People Will Adapt Canadians are remarkably adaptable, and seniors are often the most resourceful of all. If home delivery is reduced, practical solutions will emerge. Neighbours will organize. Families will build mail pickup into regular visits, turning a logistical task into a reason to connect. Some seniors will finally set up paperless billing, one account at a time. These are workable adjustments. But they should be supported by thoughtful policy, not forced by avoidable design choices. The Problem With Accommodation Accommodation programs will likely exist, but their effectiveness depends on how easy they are to access. Systems that require people to search, apply, document their needs, and follow up repeatedly tend to favour those with the time and persistence to navigate them. The seniors who most need support are often the least inclined to engage in that process. The real test is not whether accommodation exists. It is whether it is simple, visible, and available before a problem becomes a crisis. This Is About More Than Mail At its core, this debate is not really about mail. It is about independence. It is about whether people can continue to manage their own lives without unnecessary friction. It is about whether public systems are designed for real users rather than ideal ones. The ideal user is mobile, tech-savvy, and well-supported. The real user may be older, living alone, and quietly determined to remain independent. That determination deserves to be supported, not complicated. Modernization, With a Memory Home delivery is not just a legacy feature. For many seniors, it remains a small but meaningful part of how life stays organized and manageable. When that support disappears, the burden does not disappear with it. It shifts to individuals, to families, and to systems that will eventually feel the impact. If the greatest disruption falls on those least able to absorb it, the design needs a second look. And About That Cheque... We may be moving toward a world where fewer things arrive by mail. That is probably inevitable. But before we retire the idea entirely, it is worth remembering why that old line worked in the first place. “The cheque is in the mail” was believable because the system behind it was dependable. It showed up. It connected people. It did its job quietly and consistently.  Modernization should aim for the same thing.  Not nostalgia. Not resistance to change. Just reliability that works for everyone. Because if the day comes when the cheque is no longer in the mail, we should at least be able to say that whatever replaces it works just as well for the people who need it most. Ideally, without requiring ice cleats, a flashlight, and a willingness to sign a waiver. Sue Don’t Retire…ReWire! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one.  It's available September 8, 2026 - You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.

View all posts