♪ emily: i'm emily chang in san francisco and this is "bloomberg technology." the state of apple suppliers are once again in focus after nikkei reported apple plans to cut orders for components by a whopping 20%. plus, facebook'ssheryl sandberg testifies in europe. we will talk to a whistleblower who believes more data scandals are to come. and a cautionary tale that

caught the attention of every start up an investor in silicon valley. we will talk to a pulitzer prize-winning journalist who blew the whistle on elizabeth holmes. first, to our top story, apple suppliers are feeling the pressure after a new report that the tech giant has warned suppliers of a drop of around 20% in new iphone component orders. meantime, foxconn raised $4.3 billion in its ipo, a success for the group's boss and his aim to nurture a smart factory division to rely less on making products for apple. >> foxconn has the maximum 44% in shanghai on its opening day, the largest tech company listed in mainland china. the business is more valuable than ebay with the market cap of over 60 billion u.s. dollars.

clients include amazon, dell and cisco. up to 30% of the revenue comes from apple alone. the company's strategic investor list reads like a who's who of china's top firms, including alibaba, tencent and baidu. state companies also took a large part of the pie. tom mackenzie, bloomberg. emily: here to discuss the global supply chain for apple and the foxconn ipo, we are joined by ian king, and we also have gerrit with this. you have an apple analyst who says the report is just noise, should we be skeptical? gerrit: i think it's worth treating the report with a hefty grain of salt, we have seen reports about the supply chain

before, it is an sure what supply chains they are talking about in the report. you can see how investors are reacting on the supplier chain sign, there have been deeper in tech's, but in terms of what to expect from apple in terms of sales, i don't think you can expect concrete evidence that it will be as negative as the report suggests. emily: ian, broadcom reported orders, and you were listening in on the call. what did you figure out from the call? ian: we're back on the roller coaster we have been on for i don't know how many years, trying to get how much of a was ordering -- how much apple is ordering. apple has really been getting rid of a lot of inventory, and that means the devices they have out there now, whether it is the x or the two eight devices, have

not sold to the level they hoped. we are in the new cycle, they are preparing for whatever comes next and improving. whether they are improving relative to massive expectations, lower expectations, it is hard to say. >> he said it was the most popular iphone in the first time we split a line, the first time the top iphone has been the best-selling and i think that's an incredible result if you think about it. this is obviously coming from apple, we saw a great quarter. is it that concerning?

>> apple is still a juggernaut, of course. -- he has this way with words, the more expensive one was selling more, maybe they are both selling poorly, the quarter speaks for itself. important, that the sales of high-end smartphones are not growing trust the world in the way they have and that is something that investors and analysts now, something that apple and its suppliers know and part of what they are doing. nejra: talk to us about the foxconn ipo. what does this mean? this is a company that is trying to diversify away from apple and yet apple remains a huge customer. interest inthe china for having access to this asset.

this is not the first time foxconn has tried to diversify away from apple and they do have other customers, they make hardware for amazon and hp, they make hardware for the best manufacturers in the world. a sear or not this is change that will magically get them to not be pinned to apple, there is more skepticism, but it does show interest on the chinese side and the fact that the stock jumped up so much in its initial offering although it did price lower than most people were expecting it to so take that jump with a grain of salt. it is still a juggernaut of manufacturing. emily: i have a chart that shows how it dipped and now the iphone has returned. walk us through some of the other suppliers who are at the

whim these numbers. >> we saw the news our colleagues wrote today about the semiconductor company whose fortune has been on a roller coaster because of the relationship they are in with apple. according to the news we broke that they had to find another partner to get into more businesses. sourcef these single companies, even more diversified ones hit oddly. emily: walk us live a plan that foxconn has to diversify other companies. how does foxconn expect to do this? >> they had a unit that is what they would call their smart factory unit, using advanced manufacturing techniques, a lot of robotics, trying to pull more and more people out of the process and make it more

efficient and also manufacture higher income higher-margin devices, the apple iphone is obviously the prime high-margin device the company already manufactures. obviously, electronics is continuing to grow, a lot of new things are out there to manufacturer, a lot of companies coming out they can reach out to. china is a place where a lot of innovation is coming from, whether it is competing with bitcoin in the blockchain, or more traditional hard work and fracturing. smartphones are not going away. in terms of solid details and what that means, how smart manufacturing is different from traditional manufacturing, it is obviously, there is an element of branding and marketing involved here. like i said earlier, the interest in this unit is strong, people want and, they are very interested in the business, in terms of the sea change, we have yet to see that. emily: all right, thank you both. we will continue to follow.

now to a story we are watching, a new ceo at one of the biggest wireless companies in the united states. verizon has promoted its chief technology officer hans vesper. he will replace the current ceo, who will remain the executive chairman to the end of the year and nonexecutive chair after that. coming up, one of the earliest crypto entrepreneurs. we speak with eric voorhees, what he has to say about the potential government regulation come into the crypto market, next. check us out on the radio, listen on our radio app and sirius xm. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: it has been quite a year for cryptocurrencies, and that is not really a good thing. bitcoin continues to fall from a december highs, and chances of it rebounding in the near future seem far from reality. caroline hyde set earlier with one of the currencies released investors and asked all about the industry. she joins us from london. caroline: great to see you. that is right, one of the longest standing bitcoin advocates is eric voorhees, ceo of shape shift. they provide cryptocurrency conversion, trading one type of digital assets for another. he has been an original builder and entrepreneur in bitcoin since 2011. i started our conversation by asking him how he sees the crypto landscape building in the moment. eric: i've been avoiding since

the coin was at five dollars, and the only asset. the concept of blockchain was not that talked about and we spent time daydreaming about a day when corporations and governments would pay heavy attention to this because it was getting so big. it is happening. it is taking over the world in some ways, in fits and starts, but people are paying attention to it. caroline: good or bad that you are a man who can get cash in this subject, regulation. erik: that is one way to put it. i think most regulation is superfluous and best and much of it is harmful, especially in the realm of finance. i think money itself is in need of being let loose and freed from government control. it is a market-based economy having the primary good, money,

being centrally planned, i think is problematic. no one would tolerate a monopoly in the manufacturing of shoes or cars or cell phones, and yet they tolerate it in the realm of money. so people in crypto basically want to offer alternatives. caroline: let's dig into the -- will central banks and governments not play a role in what will eventually be money in a digital sense? erik: crypto is not a panacea and it does not bring a utopia, but i think it does bring competition into the realm of money and allows people to actually innovate in financial systems in a way that has never been able to be done before. for that reason, it is important, and even if someone does not buy into whether bitcoin will take over fiat currencies like dollars, most people should at least be interested in the fact that competition is now happening.

that is generally seen as a good thing. caroline: will bitcoin remain the dominant layer within this asset, cryptocurrency space, or will we have room for many? erik: it has become an asset class. bitcoin is the biggest, etherium is the second-biggest. i don't know which one we will be talking about five or 10 years now, the big thing is they can compete now. it has been exciting to see the innovation happening. there are a lot of projects. a lot of them are garbage, a lot of them are well-intentioned but will feel, and some of them will end up changing the world. caroline: this is perhaps related to a certain extent, people are losing their money, they are falling for scams and cheats in the space. do you think it needs regulation to a certain extent and how? erik: i don't think it does. largely what regulators should focus on is preventing fraud and theft.

you don't need all be ages of regulations to prevent fraud. if someone commits fraud, you should arrest them and prosecute them for fraud. most religions have nothing to do with fraud or theft, they have to do with controlling the behavior of consenting adults. some of that is, i think, highly problematic. if you believe in individual liberty and free markets, adults who are not cheating each other should be permitted to interact economically in whatever way they see fit. most regulations get in the way of a. caroline: you talked about new york, do you think it stifles innovation? erik: yes, it is just my feeling. new york issued a bit license for years ago, and crypto innovation in new york has completely died. most of the companies that were there left new york and now the biggest thing that happens in crypto in new york is the conference they have each year.

most of the crypto innovation is happening elsewhere, and that was largely due to that one piece of legislation. also, a guy left the new york department of financial services and got a job helping to consult companies trying to navigate the regulations imposed. there is a lot of cronyism going on and a think a lot of people have been set up with it. caroline: let's talk about innovation, and shape shift. what does it want to become? at the moment it is a medium of exchange for other assets, but you are going on problems to be solved. erik: technically shapeshift is a market maker, think of us as an exchange, but you come to us if you want to trade coin for others. we built a way to do that much more safely and quickly and how it has been done before. we don't hold any customer funds. this is important, most people

are aware of exchanges that have been hacked. we have a system that protects consumers by building technology that allows them to do what they want to do without holding high amounts of risk. caroline: they do that by putting ether in? i'm not putting money in, i am doing it virtually by you? erik: think of a vending machine, instead of putting in a coin, you put in a crypto asset, and instead of getting a candy bar, you get another crypto asset. we sell these directly to the customers. what we don't do is hold accounts with funds of all of the people. caroline: have to ask you about shapeshift, because you raise money from significant parts of the space. why didn't you do an ico?

erik: we put the round together in the fall of 2016, and we wanted to bring in a more institutional process and have a formal board. ico's raise a lot of money quickly, but you don't get the expertise of the people you're partnering with. that was large part of it, also, ico's were not nearly as popular when we put it together. caroline: will you do that next? erik: i won't say we haven't thought about it, but in the u.s. is problematic from a regulatory perspective because the government has not been clear about what tokens or securities and what is not. if you go to a law firm in the

u.s. and asked them to do a legal analysis of a token, whether it is a security, they can't even do the analysis. the sec has cast a huge pall over the industry and no one knows where they're going to draw the line. it has to get fixed. caroline: a wide-ranging conversation with erik voorhees. emily: thank you so much, caroline. coming up, big tech firms have been pushing diversity initiatives for years, but the numbers are not much of a change. we take a deeper look at the statistics, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: a story we are watching, the payment giant controlled by jack ma has raised about $14 million in its latest funding round. it is said to be valued at $150 billion. early this week, we saw alphabet shareholders vote down a proposal to tie executive pay to progress on workplace diversity. the problem we continue to discuss, the gender pay gap and diversity in the workplace,

efforts so far have yielded little. among race, among eight of the largest american tech companies, jobs rose. joining us now, nico grant. we talk a lot about women in tech, but we haven't talked as much about representation of blacks and others across silicon valley, and the numbers are dismal. set the lay of the land, what does silicon valley look like for black workers? >> you brought up a good point with the framing, we think a lot about women in tech and it is an important issue, women are underrepresented, and we don't mean to suggest that women are

getting the shine, we have seen measures of progress in the last few years and other groups are not. what we're seeing with black employees is at major tech firms, the percentage of black employees in technical roles are engineers, product managers, it has risen less than one percentage point. we are at about 3.1%, it had been 2.5% in 2014, and that is when under social pressure, tech companies started releasing these figures. jesse jackson and others said it is time and we need to know what it actually looks like. emily: 3% of workers at facebook are black, 2% at google. are we seeing any progress? elsewhere, better than some others. nico: i think it is true there has been some progress, and even staunch critics of tech companies have noticed the numbers have gone up a bit. i think the question is the pace, is it going up enough?

when you talk about black diversity in the tech industry, it is not just a question about recruiting, it is also a question of retention. something i found in my reporting was even though the tech companies have a litany of programs and policies in order to increase the number of black hires, including working with nonprofits, schools, offering training programs in some cases, they still are not always retaining the workers they have, and that speaks to culture. emily: he talked about the feeling of loneliness, and one of the things you point out in your story, peer reviews are popular in silicon valley, but if you don't have a connection

with other employees, you might not get as good of a review. nico: right, and that is something that was interesting to me as well. this came up at facebook with an employee there. these peer reviews, if you have those relationships with people you work with, people exchange good reviews. if you don't have that, people sometimes leave anonymous reviews for you, and they may not be as cheerful. one employee feedback spoke with said he does not always reach out for help on certain projects that require help because he feels like there is a wall around him in some sense, he is isolated on the rest of his team. because he cannot connect on the ethnic line. emily: i am so glad you are reporting on this problem. you also mentioned diversity fatigue at the end. thank you so much.

coming up, we talked to a former facebook executive turned whistleblower. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: this is "bloomberg technology," i am emily chang in san francisco. mark zuckerberg has appeared before both u.s. and european lawmakers to defend facebook's role in the cambridge analytica scandal. now, coo sheryl sandberg is one of the us officials invited to attend a hearing in july, looking at facebook's commitment to avoid such situations in the future. when we don't know if she will accept the invitation, there is a former facebook executive who has already talked to european officials about how this could have been avoided and he wants to keep holding the social media giant accountable for its actions. that would be sandy parakilas,

who is now the chief strategy officer for an organization seeking more ethical technology. also with us, sarah frier, who covers facebook. sandy, thank you for joining us, you are just back from brussels. you call this a disaster. there are many thousands of facebook employees not saying anything, what compelled you just to speak out? sandy: i've seen the tremendous amount of harm that is being done around the world as a result of some of these business practices, things like the impact on elections, not just in the u.s. but brexit. some of the violence that has taken place in sri lanka and other places. seeing that, it drove me to want to come forward and to call out some of the business practices i think led to the situation. emily: you were a platform

operations manager, in part responsible for policing data breaches, so that give you unique insight into policies and how facebook approached these things. at the time, what kinds of things did you see that troubled you? sandy: i left the company six years ago, though it has been sometime. what troubled me was the general approach. it was a general approach where they did not proactively try to try to uncover some of these problems. with respect to cambridge analytica, they knew they had access to a tremendous amount of data in late 2015 but they took the company's word for it that they had deleted the data. they did not take all of the steps they could have taken to prevent what ultimately led to the use of the data in a number of elections. emily: he also indicated that

employees at facebook avoided asking too many questions with what was what was happening with data, right? sandy: i think there was a general culture and the company to not to proactively dig in and understand what third parties were doing. sarah: do you think the company is changing, they are talking about how the platform i be abused? do you think the culture can change? sandy: i think it is beginning to change and some of the steps they are taking good first steps. the problem, new issues are coming out and they have not been transparent about them. they have a defensive attitude. rather than coming forward and say, a number of things have gone wrong, here are all of the things that have gone wrong and we want to be truly transparent moving forward to ensure this

doesn't happen. that doesn't seem to be the approach. emily: let's talk about new things, revelations facebook shared, data on users and friends with phone makers, and also chinese consumer device makers, some of which have been flagged by the u.s. government for national security concerns. you have insight into how these deals were done and that this was flagged internally as a security issue, right? sandy: i don't have insight into how the deals were done, but i do believe it was flagged internally. i think the important thing to understand is that what this really is about is a lack of trust in facebook, and a lack of transparency with regulators. the consent decree that facebook signed with the federal trade commission specifically called out the kinds of things that happened in this particular deal, and facebook said they would not be sharing a friend data anymore starting in 2014 and they repeated that again in their testimony to congress a couple of months ago. now we are seeing that in fact,

in some cases, that was not true. i think that is concerning. that even after cambridge analytica, there were still things going on that they said they were not doing that was still happening. emily: take a listen to mark zuckerberg apologizing and defending himself before u.s. congress. >> i'm the first to admit we did not take a broad enough a few of what our responsibilities were, but i also think it is important to keep in mind there are billions of people who love the services we are building because they are getting real value and able to build relationships on a day-to-day basis. that is something i am proud of her company for doing and i know we will keep on doing this. emily: that was him on a

conference call speaking with reporters ahead of the testimony. to think mark zuckerberg should still have his job? sandy: i think the need to be a serious conversation about the leadership of this book and whether they are being truly candid and transparent with regulators. sarah: do you think he is the right person to lead facebook? sandy: i think it is been clear there have been a number of very large mistakes made, and i think we need the leadership of the company to understand the damage they are doing and take a different approach. emily: let's talk about sheryl sandberg, who has been invited to europe, what you think her responsibility or culpability is?

sandy: i think they share responsibility, they work closely together and she has done a lot of functions that would be ceo responsibilities and another company. they share responsibility for what is happening. sarah: have you gotten a lot of employees coming out of the woodwork to talk to you about how they feel in the wake of this crisis? what can you tell us about -- you are one of the few public former employees, there are more now, but still not that many. what can you tell us about what you're hearing from the people who have not come out of the woodwork? sandy: i know there are concerns inside the company. i know many people who are only facebook employees who are no longer there, they have significant concerns, and a number of those folks have talked publicly. the key thing to understand is it is very difficult to be an employee at one of these companies and speak out against practices at the company. i hope that the culture is starting to change, for example, with what happened with project maven and google. the employees wrote up and demanded google not work with the defense department, and ultimately google changed some

policies. my hope is employees will become more engaged and push back against decisions they find problematic. emily: mark zuckerberg has the bear going to great lengths to ensure they clamp down on fake news, is it enough? can they prevent it? sandy: they have taken important for steps but they are only for steps and you still have a credibility problem, in that they have not been fully transparent with regulators and when you're talking about elections, that is something the regulators and lawmakers care tremendous amount about. sarah: what is the solution? sandy: i don't think there is anyone solution, i think there are a number of steps that need to be taken and they have taken some of those, one of which is providing transparency, but they also need to address the fact that transparency with respect to advertisements, but they need to go beyond that and in sure that people can understand the huge volume of these advertisements. they need to be clear about what the policies are and move in a deliberate fashion, which was not really represented by what happened in the irish referendum, where they made a

sudden change a few weeks before. emily: you think there could be another cambridge analytica type scandal? sandy: i think there is a high probability of significant data misuse, considering the amount of data that was put out into the world. emily: all right, sandy parakilas, thank you for joining us, as well as our own sarah frier. meantime, facebook coo sheryl sandberg addressed this year's m.i.t. graduating class, and pushed technology as a force for good it could be misused by malicious actors and reaffirm to facebook's commitment to owning their mistakes. >> when you're on your mistakes, you can work harder to correct them and to prevent the next one. that is my job now. it will not be easy or fast, the we will see it through. emily: coming up, exposing the

lie behind what was one of silicon valley's hottest startups. the man who blew the whistle, next. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: it was supposed to be the silicon valley startup that would revolutionize the medical industry, making its investors very rich. with just a pinprick of the blood, theranos was heralded as a lifesaver that would diagnose diseases requiring more complex tests. there was one problem, a big one, it was a lie. it had a peak valuation of $9 billion and had a charismatic leader. a wall street journal reporter began exposing their nose and its fantastical claims and now the company's future is perhaps

nonexistent. the authorities are involved in you can read all about it in "bad blood." welcome. i remember the day your story came out. i am so curious how you got the initial tip. what was the thread you started to pull that led to their? john: theranos came onto my radar when i read a profile of elizabeth holmes in new yorker magazine in 2014. there was something odd in the story, this notion that a 19-year-old college dropout with two semesters of chemical

engineering had dropped out of college and pioneered ground breaking science. that's possible in the realm of computers and computer software, but in medical science, you need the formal training and to do years and decades of research to add value. to be fair, i probably would not have done anything with that hunch if i have not gotten a tip three or four weeks later. it was a practicing pathologist in the midwest who moonlighted as the author of an obscure blog, and he had read the new yorker profile as well and was immediately dubious, wrote a skeptical blog item about it and contacted by a band of fairness skeptics. one of whom had been involved in past litigation against elizabeth holmes and become convinced during the litigation that theranos was a scam. it happened that they had made contact with the former their

nose employee that had been lab director at the company and was alleging wrongdoing. i heard there was a primary source, i understood i needed to get in touch with the primary source and i finally did after a few weeks of trying. emily: and she tried to prevent your story and went to rupert murdoch. john: exactly. theranos ignored my questions and when it became clear i was not going away, they waste and aggressive counterattack. the company attorney came to the smithtown offices twice to try to quash the story. some of my confidential sources were surveilled. they were able to figure out who some of them were, one of them was the grandson of the former secretary of state george shultz, who is on the theranos board.

he had to go through an unbelievable ordeal. there are no threat and him and put him under legal pressure for months. before my first story was published, he withstood all the pressure, never signed any of the document they put to him, and in large part asked him i was able to go to press with the story. emily: given that lives were at stake, how did elizabeth holmes managed to dupe so many people? you also think about the employees who must have known things were not going right. were talking about investors who are very prominent people. is there malice here? what do you think drove her? john: based on the reporting i have done for three years on this story, including much of it for the book, it is unquestionable there was malice and this was premeditated. emily: for what? money, glory? john: i think the way elizabeth thought of things, she did that

eventually if she got the technology there and working, it would be not only, not only would it make a great company but it would be good for society and man could. she thought the ends justified the means and she overpromised every step of the way and it got to a point where the promises and reality, the gap between them was so enormous that became a massive fraud. why did employees not blow the whistle earlier? theranos had a culture of fear, intimidation and secrecy. elizabeth's boyfriend was the number two in the company and was the enforcer of that culture. he was constantly firing people. it was very clear theranos was litigious. elizabeth had sued over a patent and it was clear she would sue anyone who spoke up.

emily: could she go to deliver this? what should the penalty be? john: the ftc charged her with brought a couple of months ago, called fairness a massive fraud, and she had to pay a half-million dollar penalty, or from being officer in a public company for years. a lot of people think the punishment was too light, that it wasn't commiserate with what was in. emily: a million tests with false results. john: right, and it could be worse than that your were talking about almost a billion dollars in investor money that went poof. to those people who feel the ftc punishment was not enough, there is a second, criminal investigation spearheaded by the u.s. attorney's office in san francisco.

that investigation has been going on for two and a half years, and i am told it could result in criminal indictments. emily: john carreyrou, excellent reporting, author of "bad blood," thank you for joining us. coming up, stepping down from one of the biggest jobs in sports because of a twitter account. we will discuss whether you can really be anonymous online. this is bloomberg. ♪

♪ emily: this week, the president for the philadelphia 76ers steps down after it was revealed his wife operated four twitter burner accounts and used them to

defend her husband's actions anonymously, or so she thought. but to the defense reveal about online identities and whether people are anonymous on twitter or other platforms? our guest joins us from charlotte, north carolina. she was the first female chief information officer at the white house, overseeing the staff under george w. bush. this sounded so many alarm bells, not just that the woman used confidential information to attack people essentially on twitter, but what are the alarm bells this raises for you? theresa: several. for starters, it might not have even risen to any type of prominence in the news had these accounts just been critical of the players. but the accounts became bolder and bolder, releasing recording

information, medical information, and once you do that and talk about threatening people and upping the ante, that's when you typically get law enforcement and reporters involved to really try to figure out who is behind these accounts. emily: there are so many accounts online where we will never know potentially who was behind them because they won't have high-profile investigations attached to them. can you really be anonymous online? theresa: it is really hard. even if you come up with a fake name, burner email accounts and phone accounts and social media accounts, you leave digital tracks behind. where you are standing in the moment you post something, the type of device you use, the browser of choice. all of those give digital tracks

and indicators. perhaps you connected to free wi-fi. that account could be captured in some of the trails you basically leave behind. and internet protocol address can tell me within a block or two. all of this can be matched with old-school detective techniques, knocking on doors, looking at information, to link analysis and pinpointed to the person who is posting online. emily: there are plenty of celebrities who have made their names thanks to a giant presence online. do you suspect there are people out there, high-profile people, who have used so-called burner accounts to boost their own reputation? theresa: yes. here's the thing, you can use burner accounts to be a force for good, you could be a ceo trying to understand what people are saying about your brand, as long as you are using it to

follow things and not say false things or pretend you're somebody you are not, that is ok. it's also used in law enforcement investigations, trying to end child trafficking and things like that. on the nefarious and dishonest side, you have individuals who are using social media accounts to promote themselves, to take other people down, and in many cases we are seeing cyber criminal syndicates get very sophisticated, state-sponsored syndicates as well, get very sophisticated in using artificial intelligence to create bots that manage multiple social media accounts. one human can manage hundreds of thousands of social media accounts and posts, and we saw that with russia and the influence they tried to have on social media sentiment for the u.s. and u.k. elections, and potentially in spain. you see these accounts being used for dishonesty, and crossing the line into nefarious

purposes. emily: twitter has made it clear, allowing anonymity is part of what differentiates it from facebook. facebook has its own fake account problem. most of this is going to happen without anybody ever knowing, right? the vast majority of the accounts that are perhaps engaged in the various activities. what is the solution? theresa: this should be a wake-up call for business and government organizations everywhere. first of all, take a look at social media policies and make sure you are crystal clear about how social media is to be used in your professional and off time. let people know, if you are using fake accounts to promote yourself or take someone else down, that is not ok. as consumers, be extra wary. emily: theresa payton, thank you so much for joining us. that does it for this edition of

"bloomberg technology" from san francisco. i am emily chang. this is bloomberg. ♪

>> this is a paid advertisement for viviscal. the clinically proven solution for thicker, healthy looking hair. >> women never expect to have to worry about losing our hair, eight out of 10 women will experience hair loss. it can happen any stage in life, in your 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's to