• Dan Schawbel is a bestselling author, speaker, entrepreneur, and host of the "5 Questions with Dan Schawbel" podcast, where he interviews world-class humans by asking them just five questions in under 10 minutes.
• He recently interviewed social media phenomenon, entrepreneur, and content creator Jay Shetty.
• When making a big life transition, Shetty said that you need to do your research and "get really good at what you want to transition to." 
• Shetty also said to "not become who you think you need to become" and instead to "focus on your inner potential."
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

You may think Jay Shetty came out of nowhere with over 25 million followers on Facebook, and 4 billion total views, but he's had a long journey to become the luminary you see today. Jay only had three options growing up: doctor, lawyer, or failure. At age 18, he met a monk who inspired him to live a life of service and purpose. Upon graduating from the Cass Business School in London, he spent three years living as a monk across India and Europe. After moving on from monk life, he was asked to speak at a variety of companies about what he learned throughout his journey.

Then, he became Accenture's social media coach for executives, helping them with digital strategies. From there, he started posting videos online that received enough attention that Arianna Huffington hired him to produce for The Huffington Post in New York City. He eventually left the company to focus on creating his own self-help content, with the mission to make wisdom go viral. Today, Jay is the co-founder (with Alex Kushneir) of Icon Media, a viral video production company, a global keynote speaker, and the host of the "On Purpose" podcast.

In the below conversation, Jay shares how he's been able to make transitions in his life, his sources for inspiration, how he manages his time so he's fulfilled personally and professionally, how to be human through technology, and his best career advice.

Dan Schawbel: Jay, you've made many transitions in your life, from graduating from college, to living as a monk, to working at Accenture, to your role at the Huffington Post, to being a social media influencer. How did you decide when to make these transitions in your career?

Jay Shetty: The biggest thing for me in a transition is research. I get so lost in other people's journeys and other people's trajectories. I wonder "what did this person do?", "how did they do it differently?" and "how did they think about it?" Because when you research the lives of people you admire, you realize there's no pattern, formula, or step-by-step format. The step-by-step format that did exist is that they all researched what was possible, what was available, and what were the different paths. The second thing is to get really good at what you want to transition to. So, don't wait to transition to become an expert or learn more, start learning from day one. So, if you wanted to work in social media, you have to learn social media before you want to work in it or before you want someone to notice you doing it.

Read more: I'm a wife and mother who works from home. My family acts like I don't have a job — and I'm tired of it.

Dan: You inspire so many people, but what are your sources for inspiration?

Jay: The thing that inspires me the most is the quality of humility. Anyone who is humble but still super accomplished, super recognized, renowned, has status, and has every reason to not have to be humble if they don't want to, but they still choose to be humble because they value that humanity is connected — that we're all on the same level as humans — that humility is what wins my heart. So, when I see that in a person, who could be arrogant or proud but displays humility, that inspires me so much. The values of gratitude and integrity inspire me. I could be inspired by anyone in the world as long as they are displaying and demonstrating these qualities and values. When I see them in a human I'm won over by them.

Dan: How do you manage your time so you can be fulfilled in every aspect of your life?

Jay: When it comes to time management, I talk a lot more about energy management. I try to give people 100% of my energy even if I'm giving them very little of my time. The reason why I try to do that is because what I feel that what people really want from you is your energy. People want to spend ten minutes of power energy with you versus an hour of us being on our phones. When it comes to people I love and care about, I may condense the time, but I'm giving them every ounce of my energy. When it comes to creation, I block create and block focus on business. I create a lot of my content in one or two days for the next month because I can get really creatively inspired and then I can spend the rest of the couple of months thinking about other creative ideas but focusing on business, logistics, being effective, practical, and productive. That block creation allows me to focus much more effectively on either of the tasks.

Read more: Moving my tech startup from Silicon Valley to DC was the best decision I made, and I'm convinced more founders should try it

Dan: Technology can be used as a crutch or it can be used to develop stronger relationships. How have you used technology to create deeper relationships with others and not let it isolate you and make you feel lonely?

Jay: I think technology can be an incredible tool, especially when you use it purposely, rather than be used by it. Technology is great for instant communication, connection, and reminders letting someone know that you're missing them and that you are thinking of them. It's so beautiful for short instant connection. But, when it comes to meaningful discussion, take them offline. When it comes to important discussion, debates, and decisions for your life, take them offline. When it comes to those big stumbling block challenging conversations, which we all have to have in life, take them offline because those are the ones that you need to have face-to-face in person. But, remember you can also infuse your use of technology with compassion and kindness. Telling someone you miss them through a text or a message is beautiful. Sending someone a quick little video is an amazing opportunity. You can infuse your use of technology with compassion, with kindness, with empathy, and love. You can be human through technology.

Dan: What are your top three pieces of career advice?

Jay: 

1. Do not become who you think you need to become; become who you truly are and were before all these new ideas were put into your head. Education and the process of it is to bring out, not to put in. We've got so busy putting in that we don't bring out the potential that's really there. Focus on your inner potential.
2. Get mentors, get coaches, and get guides. The importance of having someone five years ahead of you and twenty-five years ahead of you is so powerful. Do not limit it to just one or the other; you need both perspectives.
3. Being depressed, failing, and disappointed is a part of living a meaningful life. Do not try to dodge those emotions. It's so normal and it's super going to happen to you and me, so just be ready for that and prepared for that as opposed to thinking you don't want it.

Subscribe to the "5 Questions with Dan Schawbel" podcast on iTunes, Spotify, Overcast, or others.

SEE ALSO: 'I had the chance to invest in Uber in the early days and I passed it up': 6 millionaires on their biggest money regrets

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ray Dalio shares what he's learned from his succession plan at the world's largest hedge fund

• Podcasts are more popular than ever.
• In the last decade, podcasts became a part of mainstream media, thanks to true crime shows like "Serial" and interview shows like "WTF with Marc Maron."
• We've compiled 17 podcasts that will teach you a little bit about everything from politics to history to Hollywood.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

In the last decade or so, podcasts have gone from a niche interest to mainstream media.

True crime podcasts like "Serial," which premiered in 2014, became national sensations. Then there was comedian-turned-podcaster Marc Maron, whose "WTF" became popular enough for President Barack Obama to be a guest in June 2015.

According to the Pew Research Center, 32% of Americans age 12 or older have listened to at least one podcast episode per month as of 2019, up from 15% in 2014. That trend doesn't show any signs of slowing down, with the field slated to cross the $1 billion annual revenue mark in 2021. 

There are tons of great podcasts on nearly any subject you can think of, but we've collected some of our favorites that are perfect for those of us always eager to learn something new, whether it's about the economy, history, or even the inner workings of Hollywood.

Here's some prime listening material for your next commute.

SEE ALSO: 14 books Mark Zuckerberg thinks everyone should read

'This American Life' provides a deep look into American society.

"This American Life" has become a byword for oral storytelling.

Beyond being a place for moving and hilarious stories, "This American Life" does staggering levels of reporting; few outlets made the financial crisis as human and understandable as Ira Glass and the gang.

It lives up to the hype.

Start listening here.

'Fresh Air' will give you an intimate look at your favorite writers, celebrities, and journalists.

NPR's "Fresh Air" host Terry Gross has been on the air for more than four decades, and her interviewing skills have earned her accolades like the Peabody award, the Columbia Journalism Award, and a spot in the National Radio Hall of Fame.

Gross may have a smooth, relaxed speaking style, but the way she digs deep into her interview subjects will keep you engaged throughout the conversation, whether it's about Jake Gyllenhaal's acting process or how filmmaker Lulu Wang made a movie inspired by her terminally ill grandmother or historian David Blight on his new biography of Frederick Douglass.

Start listening here.

'Freakonomics Radio' will show you surprising connections.

Journalist Stephen J. Dubner and economist Steven D. Levitt became sensations when their book "Freakonomics" was published in 2005.

In 2010, Dubner launched a podcast with the same mission as their bestselling books: ferreting out connections between seemingly unrelated things.

Unsurprisingly, the shows tend toward the intellectually provocative, with the biggest hits having titles like "Is College Really Worth It?" and "How Much Does the President of the US Really Matter?"

Start listening here.

'Marketplace' will keep you up to date with the world's top business news.

Every weeknight host Kai Ryssdal guides you through the day's top business news on the podcast version of American Public Radio's "Marketplace."

Besides a rundown of top stories, you'll also be able to hear exclusive interviews with the likes of Twitter cofounder and Square CEO Jack Dorsey and even former President Obama.

You may also hear Business Insider senior finance editor and "Marketplace" contributor Linette Lopez weigh in with some commentary.

Start listening here.

'Planet Money' will simplify some of the most complex and important economic issues in the world today.

NPR's "Planet Money" team describes its show as: "Imagine you could call up a friend and say, 'Meet me at the bar and tell me what's going on with the economy.' Now imagine that's actually a fun evening. That's what we're going for at Planet Money."

Twice a week, you'll get an entertaining, well-reported look at issues like the Tijuana tech boom that will leave you satisfied with a foundational understanding of the subject, all in just 15 minutes.

Start listening here.

'Masters in Business' will give you insight into the brightest minds on Wall Street.

Investor and author Barry Ritholtz sits down each week with a power player from the business world for his podcast produced by Bloomberg.

With his unmistakable Long Island accent, Ritholtz discusses his subjects' careers and research, whether it's "Bond King" Jeffrey Gundlach, renowned economist Richard Thaler, or even celebrity chef Bobby Flay.

Start listening here.

'WTF' offers unexpected revelations about success.

Few things can be more instructive than a life story, and comedian-turned-broadcaster Marc Maron draws the ups and downs of life out of people with a certain raucous grace.

Some especially intellectual episodes include his interviews with comedian Wanda Sykes, actor Vince Vaughn, or the late Robin Williams.

Start listening here.

'Radiolab' will help you appreciate how mysterious science is.

WNYC's "Radiolab" — the brainchild of top reporters Jad Abumrad and Robert Krulwich — investigates everyday oddities with a blend of science, philosophy, and music.

The duo is able to make high-level science both remarkably accessible, practical, and fun.

You may want to start with the "Colors" episode, where you can learn about a sea creature with so many colors the human eye can't even process all of them.

Start listening here.

'Invisibilia' will lead you on a journey to the frontier of psychology.

Radiolab made a spin-off, "Invisibilia," whose name is Latin for all things invisible.

It's a podcast about the unseen, unconscious forces that guide our lives: biases, dreams, and quirks of perception.

The first episode tells the story of a boy who couldn't communicate for 12 years. His only company was his thoughts — until, one day, it wasn't. 

Start listening here.

'The Tim Ferriss Show' will help you understand the mechanics of success.

Tim Ferriss puts the life into life hacking. His "4-Hour Workweek,""4-Hour Body," and "4-Hour Chef" books have all become bestsellers for the way he combines insight with irreverence.

His podcast carries that rascally inquisitiveness into long-form interviews, with subjects ranging from billionaire investor Peter Thiel to Pixar cofounder Ed Catmull and neuroscientist Sam Harris.

Start listening here.

'Startalk Radio' will open your mind to the cosmos.

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the public face of astronomy, and his voice is just as magnetizing.

Dig into his podcast to learn about space tourism, comets, and the basics of astrophysics, to name a few.

Start listening here.

'The New Yorker: Politics and More' will give you some smart takes on the biggest stories in politics.

Dorothy Wickenden, executive editor of "The New Yorker," leads a weekly discussion with some of her writers about the week's top stories, from the 2020 presidential race to US border policy.

Each episode only lasts about 16 minutes, but you'll gain some valuable insight and hear smart debate without the inflammatory rhetoric of cable news.

Start listening here.

'StartUp' chronicles the glorious challenge of founding a company.

NPR veteran Alex Blumberg wanted to make a podcast startup. So he made a podcast about it. (Which then turned into a Zach Braff sitcom.)

Since Season 1, Blumberg's company, Gimlet Media, has started two other popular shows (including "Reply All," also on this list) and continues to grow.

Season 2 follows the dating site Dating Ring through all of its trials and tribulations as a young company, setting the template for each new season of "Start Up" being about a new business.

Start listening here.

'Reply All' immerses you in the weird world of the internet.

You probably use the internet every day, but Alex Goldman and PJ Vogt will give you more insight into its effects on our culture than you were ever aware of.

They've covered great stories like the ways ISIS uses social media and how an Orthodox Jew ultimately left his family behind because of the world he discovered online.

And Goldman and Vogt's goofy rapport will keep you hooked from episode to episode.

Start listening here.

'99% Invisible' will give you the lowdown on design.

"99% Invisible" is probably the coolest design podcast on earth.

Roman Mars' show uses design as a lens to look at the thought behind the many structures in our lives, from prehistoric hand axes to airport layouts. After listening you'll have an appreciation for the minds and tastes that these objects sprang from.

Not only that, but the podcasts are snack-sized, clocking in at about 15 minutes.

Start listening here.

'Hardcore History' teaches you the most fascinating stories in history that you never learned in school.

Dan Carlin always mentions that he's not a historian. Think of him more as an aggregator of history, weaving together various accounts into one engaging story.

If you listen, you'll probably find yourself amazed that you spent over four hours listening to a guy talk about the Mongol khans or World War I, but Carlin has a gift for illuminating some of the most interesting yet least talked about moments in history.

Start listening here.

'Behind the Bastards' investigates the absolute worst people in history.

Much like "Hardcore History," "Behind the Bastards" peers deeper into oft-overlooked history.

Most of us know the basics of why Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin were some of the worst human beings ever, but what about Leopold II, the Belgian king who led a genocide in the Congo for rubber?

Start listening here.

'ArtHoles' is art history in all its paint-splattered glory, with the listener learning along with the host.

If you ever thought art history was boring, you're not the only one.

The host of "ArtHoles," former comedian Michael Anthony, thought so, until he began researching the lives of geniuses like Picasso, Pollock, and Caravaggio. As it turns out, their lives were more interesting than he ever thought possible.

Start listening here.

Similarly, 'Unspooled' follows a comedian's journey into the greatest movies ever made.

Comedian Paul Scheer and film critic Amy Nicholson team up for this greatest-hits-of-film analysis.

Scheer, who was poorly versed in film history when the podcast began, stands (or sits) in for the listener, learning as he goes, from Nicholson's film knowledge and from interviews with the experts. Together, they work their way through the American Film Institute's top 100, including Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, and Vertigo.

Start listening here.

And finally, 'Philosophize This!' thinks a lot about thinkers.

Join Stephen West as he investigates the greatest personalities and ideas in philosophy, school by school.

This podcast sheds light on classic philosophical ideas and principles, featuring interviews with today's brightest philosophers. Ever wondered what Socrates was all about? "Philosophize this!" makes complex ideas digestible and entertaining.

Start listening here.

• Tech is a major part the $4.5 billion biotech Moderna's efforts to develop a new kind of personalized cancer treatment. 
• But the company's successes with AI have been not with "these large moonshot programs but all the little things that make it really hard for our scientists to do their jobs," Dave Johnson, the biotech's senior director of informatics, told Business Insider.
• A key example of that can be seen with the complex planning required to manufacture the company's experimental cancer vaccines. AI allowed Moderna to go beyond "guessing" to make those decisions, Johnson said. 
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

For biotech company Moderna, which went public last year in the biggest biotech IPO in history, the emphasis is as much on the tech as the biology. 

That extends from the tablets that monitor operations on the floor of its Norwood, Massachusetts manufacturing facility to the algorithms that are used in its experimental cancer vaccines.

But Dave Johnson, Moderna's senior director of informatics, says that the company's reaped the biggest gains using tech to free up its scientists time, not to replace them.

"The success we've had has been not focusing on these large moonshot programs but all the little things that make it really hard for our scientists to do their jobs" so they "can focus on their core jobs of being innovative," he said.

Moderna has been able to see and seize those opportunities because the company digitized all its operations from the very beginning, which allowed it to generate data enabling the use of algorithms, he said. At Moderna, digital initiatives are emphasized at every level, from the company's Chief Digital Officer, Marcello Damiani, to the amount of internal resources that are available, Johnson says.

"I think there are a lot of applications of machine learning, AI, that people are ignoring," Johnson said. Those smaller problems, which are achievable, get overlooked, "and I think a lot of companies in the industry are going to struggle with that."

AI is being used across the biopharmaceutical industry to take on some of its most persistent challenges. With massive data sets at its disposal, the industry hopes machine learning and AI tech can make better predictions about subjects like which experimental drugs are most likely to succeed.

That's especially important in the pharmaceutical industry, where productivity from the research and development activities that lead to new drugs has been on the decline for decades. Moderna's experience with AI could prove a useful case study for other biopharmaceutical companies. 

Read more: The $1.2 trillion pharma industry has big ambitions for AI technology

Using algorithms to deploy manufacturing resources more effectively

Moderna is developing experimental products called personalized cancer vaccines that are being tested out for conditions like melanoma, and must be custom made for each patient.

Because of that, and because patients enroll in research trials at variable times, planning the manufacturing process for the vaccines, from capacity for orders to even aspects like how much raw material the biotech needed, was especially complicated. The biotech also wanted to know what would happen if aspects were changed, and how much that would affect the product.

So Moderna turned to an algorithm, feeding in metrics from research trials to simulate hundreds of trials with thousands of pretend patients, asking questions like, "What if we change this timeline from five days to three days? What would that mean?" Johnson said.

The results allowed Moderna to match its manufacturing capacity to its needs, including through making large, crucial decisions about where to invest capital funds.

"Before we had this tool, they were kind of guessing," he said.

The machine learning-based approach allows Johnson and team to supply decision-makers with concrete metrics, like what percentage of patients will need a particular dose. Those, in turn, go into designing a research trial and ensuring capacity is large enough to meet patient needs, without spending so much on capital that expensive manufacturing capacity gets wasted.

See:Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan told us how the Swiss drug giant is using AI for everything from evaluating managers to predicting its financials

This particular project began when Moderna's clinical team, which takes charge of all matters related to its research programs, was having difficulty figuring out where to begin.

Johnson's group analyzed both the problem and how achievable it was. It also considered the project's value, or how great the return on investment could be.

Quantifying that was hard. But because the project involved large capital decisions being made around the company's future, "it was clear that it was an overwhelming return on investment," Johnson says.

So the team set it into motion, with work beginning in February of 2018, all done in house. The initial release came about a month later. The algorithm has been used consistently in the time since for various projects around the company, including to plan for Moderna's phase 2 research.

Because this project addressed a more or less straightforward problem, and could be handled with a simple algorithm, trained using a forecasting technique and the right data, Johnson doesn't recall any large hurdles. But that hasn't been the case with every algorithm.

The duration of AI projects can be highly variable, depending on their complexity and the availability of relevant data, according to Johnson.

One especially tenacious, complex problem, for instance, has held up one project for years. The AI solution Johnson and his team devised has been working and is being used to make key decisions across four different teams at the company, including the manufacturing unit, he says.

That can be tracked easily, because Moderna came up with a plan and can follow whether there are any discrepancies as research develops.

Johnson says that "if there was a mismatch we would absolutely see that, and so far we haven't seen those challenges."

• Read more:
• A startup using AI to find new treatments for rare diseases just raised $121 million. Here's why its CEO still has a dire prediction for the industry.
• 'We're light years ahead of where we were': Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan told us how the Swiss drug giant is using AI for everything from evaluating managers to predicting its financials
• 'Like we were being forced to gamble with our son's life': Health insurers won't pay for a $2.1 million drug for kids, and parents say they're running out of time
• Using apps to treat diseases could be the future of healthcare. The first chief digital officer at pharma giant Sanofi told us his strategy for navigating the promises and pitfalls.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How to survive an alligator attack

• Reality-altering tools have existed almost as long as photography.
• In the last century and a half, there has been an array of tools developed to trick viewers into seeing things that aren't there.
• Old trick photographs look silly to us now, but deepfake videos are shockingly convincing.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Using photos to trick viewers into falling for illusions has been as popular as the medium of photography itself.

While scalpels and glue were once the main tools of the trade, Adobe's landmark Photoshop software brought picture manipulation to the modern era — and made it available to the masses. Magazine covers and ads were no longer the only places where one could turn to for warped visions of reality. With the click of a mouse, anyone could vanish their most hated blemishes from pictures or add elements that were never there.

Now, AI has made image manipulation a part of daily life. Accessible phone apps can show us how we'd look 40 years in the future, while "deepfake" videos take reality-altering to its extreme: it grafts faces onto images and videos so convincingly, people who view them are sure they're portraying actual events.

Here are the biggest leaps image-manipulating technology has made in the last decades.

SEE ALSO: A psychologist explains why everyone is obsessed with a new viral app that shows what you'll look like when you're old

Composite images made for heroic panoramas.

This photograph, known as "General Grant at City Point," depicts Union General Ulysses S. Grant at his most heroic. Well, sort of.

The photograph, according to the Library of Congress, is actually from around 1902 — 40 years after the Civil War. It was created by a Washington, DC, photographer named Levin Corbin Handy, who hoped to make money selling heroic Civil War photos.

Different images contributed to the final product.

Grant's head came from this informal portrait taken in Cold Harbor, Virginia, in 1864. The horse and body came from Maj. Gen. Alexander McDowell McCook, from a July 1864 photograph.

The scenery was fake, too. It wasn't City Point at all: It was a camp for Confederate prisoners who were captured in the Battle of Fisher's Hill, which explains why no one is paying much attention to Grant or his horse in the doctored photo.

Composite images could also create some fantastic illusions.

Convinced this photo is real? The grasshopper's shadow isn't in the same direction as the man's. If it were, it would be slanting left along the man's pants or on the ground. And not to state the obvious, but grasshoppers don't grow three feet long.

This photograph, though quite absurd, was thought to be real by many people. According to the Kansas Historical Society, it was created by Frank D. "Pop" Conard, from Garden City, Kansas, in 1937. In fact, he made several images featuring giant grasshoppers, which he called "hopper whoppers."

Double exposures were an early camera trick.

When photography was new, some people thought the idea of capturing a spirit on film was completely plausible. So when photographs of "spirits" surfaced, like this one, people believed they were real.

This image, known as "The Haunted Lane," was created in 1889 and signed "Melander & Bro." It was put together using the double exposure technique, in which a photo is taken (in this case of the terrified men), and the camera lens covered up. When the "spirit" walks into the frame, the camera is opened up for another brief second, and the spirit walks away, creating an ethereal, transparent effect over the first image.

Dictators of all stripes relied on retouching to alter photos that portrayed "inconvenient" realities.

The Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin not only had many enemies, he also had the power to get rid of them — both in photographs and in real life.

The missing man in the second image above is Naval Commissar Nikolai Yezhov, according to "The Commissar Vanishes" by David King. The first photograph was taken sometime in 1938 or '39, and was later retouched to make Yezhov "disappear" after he was executed during one of Stalin's great purges.

All it took was a scalpel, glue, a bit of paint (or pencil), and some airbrushing for a semi-photorealistic effect. Even the original image was retouched to make the water more visible (and reportedly, Stalin more handsome). "Stalin's pockmarked face, in particular, demanded exceptional skills with the airbrush," King writes.

The Photoshop program brought image manipulation to the masses.

Photoshop has done more to change the nature of photography than any other tool.

Instead of hand-altering images, editors can endlessly tamper with them on a computer screen. This is most often see in ads and magazine covers, which has led critics to say that digital "perfectionism" is destroying America's body image.

The software was first created by Thomas and John Knoll in the late 1980s, and was then sold to Adobe in 1990.

According to Merriam-Webster, the first known use of "Photoshop" as a verb when talking about changing photos occured in 1992. This wouldn't have been possible without Adobe's landmark photo-editing software.

In this picture, a burger is photographed for a Canadian publicity shoot. The burger on the left, after some real-life alterations by on-set crew, was Photoshopped into the burger on the right.

Snapchat's Face Swap filter was an overnight sensation.

Snapchat introduced the Face Swap function on its app back in 2016, and it's been a viral source of entertainment ever since. People swap their faces with their friends, family, or even statues. In fact, you can swap your face with just about anything, including chocolate chip cookies.

FaceApp uses AI to give viewers a glimpse of their future.

FaceApp is the latest viral trend in facial recognition, but instead of swapping out your face, you can get an idea of what you'd look like in 40 years. 

The AI-powered photo-editing software goes a step further than Snapchat in that it's very convincing. It's probably what inspired celebrities like Gordon Ramsay, Drake, and the Jonas Brothers to try it out.

It's drawn much more controversy than Snapchat as well, mainly because the app collects and stores data and photos for ads and other purposes. The app is also Russian, which worries critics concerned over the influence of Russian hackers on the 2016 presidential race.

Augmented reality places image manipulation in the third dimension.

Augmented reality (AR) is perhaps the most literal reality-altering tool on this list, because it's meant to alter the three-dimensional space around a viewer.

While the most popular implentation of the tech so far has been the "Pokémon Go" game, more practical real-world applications include the Gatwick passenger app, which helps travelers navigate the London airport to find check-in desks, gates, and baggage claim. Ikea also made its own AR app, the Ikea Place app, which helps users envisage what their homes would look like with, say, a POÄNG chair.

Deepfakes can easily change the faces and voices of people in videos.

You may remember Tom Hanks meeting John F. Kennedy in "Forrest Gump," the closest thing the world had to a deepfake in 1994. They're much more convincing now.

The term "deepfake" is a portmanteau of "deep learning" and "fake." These deceptive videos are made using AI technology, often as jokes (as in Jim Carrey's "impersonation" of Jack Nicholson in "The Shining").

Deepfake technology has also been used for pornography. There have been several instances of "revenge porn" using apps like DeepNude, which let users graft any face onto porn stars' bodies.

Misinformation could become widespread with the use of deepfakes. Already, some people have been fooled by Kit Harrington apologizing for the final season of "Game of Thrones" and Mark Zuckerberg gloating about his absolute power.

Deepfakes have been created to point out how easy it is to be fooled by them.

To prove how deceptive deepfakes can be, BuzzFeed made a video of Barack Obama saying things no president would ever say, like "I don't know, Killmonger was right," or "President Trump is a complete and total dips---."

The video was created by German computer scientists using the Face2Face computer software, which enables users to make anyone say virtually anything. Obama's "voice" was provided by actor and director Jordan Peele, known for his pitch-perfect impersonations of the president on his sketch show, "Key & Peele."

• Alexander Wang is a fashion designer whose clothes are worn by the world's top models and celebrities.
• In an episode of Business Insider's podcast "This Is Success," Wang explained that he increasingly cares less about what fashion-industry gatekeepers think, and is instead more focused on the consumer.
• This is why he pulled out of New York Fashion Week last year and has been holding fashion shows in unusual places with public access, like the one he held at Rockefeller Center in May.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Even if you've never worn his clothes, you probably know his name. Not only does fashion designer Alexander Wang dress the world's top models, his name is casually dropped in rap songs, and celebrities like the Kardashians and Rihanna have helped make his brand part of pop culture.

And while representatives of his label declined to share financials, they noted that annual revenue exceeds the previously reported number of  $150 million for 2016.

But fashion is, of course, a fickle industry, and Wang's success over the past 15 years doesn't guarantee the longevity of his brand. This is why his sights are now set on turning his label into the next iconic American designer brand, on par with Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein. To do that, he's breaking industry rules and using the consumer as his guide, rather than the expectations of his peers.

"I don't want to say that I want to bite the hand that feeds me, because I grew up in this industry and it was very supportive," Wang said in an episode of Business Insider's podcast "This Is Success."

The fashion industry has several gatekeepers of taste, including established media like Vogue and high-end retailers. Though Wang has benefited from strong relationships with these power players, he says the time has come to shift focus.

"A lot of the organizations (and the editors and the buyers, of course) are very important to our business," he said. "But yeah, at the end of the day, I think for everyone's sake, it's the consumer who is shopping at those stores, who's reading those magazines. They're the most important."

He's flouted the expectations of those in the fashion world in two primary ways: Skipping New York Fashion Week and holding fashion shows where no one else has before. This hasn't always gone smoothly, but he's decided that risking a couple mistakes is worth it for the long run.

New York Fashion Week dates back to 1943 and is one of four central events for the industry held around the world (the other Fashion Weeks are in Paris, Milan, and London). It's a biannual event each February for fall-winter collections, and in September for spring-summer collections. Most top American designers will attend New York Fashion Week to network with fellow designers and the industry media assembled, but Wang decided in January 2018 that he could afford to do his own thing.

"I was confused about the seasonality, let alone a consumer who's watching," Wang said, referring to the non-intuitive way lines are debuted on the runway six months or so before hitting stores. "And also the fact that we have a global brand and that spring, summer, fall, winter doesn't really resonate the same in New York as it does in Australia."

Wang told us that his 2018 decision to leave Fashion Week developed over time, though seeds had sprouted earlier: In September 2017, he held his own shown in Brooklyn's trendy Bushwick neighborhood. This forced those assembled in Manhattan for Fashion Week's festivities to travel to the outer borough and compete with a horde of fans. And while Wang says that the celebrities and models who attended had a great party that night, the fashion show resulted in major traffic jams and a rush of public onlookers flowing past NYPD crowd barriers.

In our interview, Wang said that his first Brooklyn show in 2014 "was the biggest kind of drama" because it just wasn't what people did during Fashion Week. But he's continued to play by his own rules, and he says has learned from each experience. For example, yet another Brooklyn show he held last year went smoothly, compared to the others.

His latest show also went outside the conventional catwalk: He held it in May at Manhattan's Rockefeller Center, the first fashion show ever held at the tourist-packed locale. That it wasn't held during Fashion Week did not minimize the attention the spectacle received.

Going forward, Wang is considering ways to diversify his brand, whether it's through more collaborations (like a recent one with Uniqlo) that make his brand accessible, or through entertainment that fans can interact with, whether at an open fashion show YouTube series he's producing around himself and his label. He's clear to state that it doesn't matter as much to him what the fashion industry gatekeepers think of his decisions — in the end, it's what his fans wants.

"If everyone is just sitting around with the status quo, then nothing's ever going to change," Wang said. "There's always risks involved and I think we recognize that, and we stomach it and we go with it."

Subscribe to "This Is Success" on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher and listen to the episode there or below:

SEE ALSO: How Alexander Wang went from 20-year-old college dropout to head of a global fashion empire beloved by Rihanna, Kanye, and the Kardashians

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Designer Alexander Wang explains how he balances the business and creative sides of his global fashion empire

• Presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently faced backlash over a proposal to close the racial wealth gap by eliminating student debt for some entrepreneurs.
• While many criticized the plan itself, the student debt crisis has disproportionately impacted black borrowers and saddled black students with the most debt. 
• Here are eight startling statistics on how much harder the student debt crisis has been for black borrowers compared to other racial groups.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

People across the country are sacrificing gas and healthcare to pay off the record $1.5 trillion student loan debt— and black borrowers in particular are hurting the most.

Black students are not only more likely to need to take on debt for school, graduates are also nearly five times as likely to default on their loans than their white peers.

Read more:10 mind-blowing facts that show just how dire the student-loan crisis in America is

The racial gap between black and white student borrowers has prompted presidential hopefuls to address the issue. Most recently, Senator Kamala Harris proposed a plan to wipe out debt for minority entrepreneurs. Specifically, Pell Grant recipients who start a business that operate for at least three years in disadvantaged communities would have debts forgiven, as part of a larger initiative to close the racial wealth gap.

She faced backlash, however, due to the many conditions a borrower would need to fulfill before they could qualify. Harris' debt elimination scope is much narrower compared to Elizabeth Warren's, whose initiative would wipe all student debt for 75% of US borrowers. Bernie Sanders, meanwhile, would eliminate all such debt.

Here are eight mind-blowing statistics about the student-debt crisis' impact on black borrowers as compared to white students. (The majority of data sources compared black- and white-borrower debt, which is why other racial groups were not mentioned directly.)

SEE ALSO: Women earn 60% of bachelor's degrees, but leave college with $2,700 more student debt than men

DON'T MISS: College is more expensive than it's ever been, and the 5 reasons why suggest it's only going to get worse

1. 86.6% of black students borrow federal loans to attend four-year colleges, compared to 59.9% of white students.

Of the black students who graduated in 2003, one in two defaulted on their student loans sometime within the following 12 years, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics as analyzed by Student Loan Hero.

In comparison, the rates of default for white student was at 21.5%, and 36.1% for Latino students.

2. Even well-off black students carry more student-loan debt.

Beth Akers, fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center on Children and Families, told Martha C. White of NBC News that black students don't benefit as much from their parents' wealth as white students do.

Well-off black families have a lower average net worth than white families, and they hold their wealth differently — mostly in homeownership as opposed to financial assets like stocks that are easy to access, White reported.

3. An average black graduate has $7,400 more in student debt than his or her white peer.

Black students with bachelor's degrees owe $7,400 more student debt on average upon graduation than white grads, according to Brookings.

The gap widens over time: after four years, black grads hold almost twice as much in student debt as their white counterparts at $53,000.

Brookings analyzed restricted-use data from the Department of Education's Baccalaureate and Beyond surveys, as well as Department of Education and Census Bureau data.

4. Black student-loan borrowers default on their loans at five times the rate of white graduates.

Though just six out of every 100 BA holders default on their loans, black borrowers are much more likely to default: 21% of them default on their loans compared to just 4% of white grads, according to Brookings. Furthermore, black graduates with a bachelor's degree are even slightly more likely to default — or don't make a payment for 270 consecutive days — than white college dropouts.

Brookings does not attribute the racial disparity to just lower levels of parent education or family income. Instead, they point to higher for-profit graduate-school enrollment and lower earnings post-grad.

5. Graduates of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) take on 32% more debt than their peers at other colleges.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of Education Department data found that not only do alumni at HBCUs take on 32% more debt than graduates at other public or nonprofit four-year schools, the majority of graduates haven't paid any debt in the first few years out of school.

While HBCUs make up just 5% of four-year American colleges, they make up "50% of the 100 schools with the lowest three-year student-loan repayment rates," the Journal found. The discrepancy could be because black families already have less wealth compared to other racial groups.

HBCUs are typically more affordable than other institutions, according to Student Loan Hero. Spelman College, the most expensive HBCU as of January 2019, costs $28,181 in tuition, several thousand dollars less than the national average of $32,410 for private four-year colleges.

6. Eliminating student-loan debt would narrow the racial wealth gap for young families.

The Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank based in New York, found that white households headed by people between the ages of 25 and 40 have 12 times the amount of wealth on average than black households.

By eliminating student debt — as presidential candidates Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have proposed to do in some capacity — the ratio shrinks to just five times the amount of wealth.

Even after canceling debt, however, the racial wealth gap will remain high: the median wealth in young white households would total $52,700, compared to $10,010 for their black peers.

7. White borrowers pay down their education debt at a rate of 10% a year, compared with 4% for black borrowers.

That's according to a study by Jason Houle and Fenaba Addo in SAGE journals. They found that racial inequalities in student debt contribute to the black-white wealth gap in early adulthood, which increases over time.

After adjusting for family background and postsecondary characteristics, black youth reported 85.8% more debt than their white peers when starting their careers, according to the authors. This disparity grows by 6.7% annually, they said.

8. Black graduates earn less money out of college, making it harder to pay off their loans.

Black college graduates ages 21 to 24 earn $3.34 less per hour than their white peers, reported Jillian Berman for MarketWatch, citing an analysis by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. That contributes to a $7,000 annual difference.

The data found the workers held similar qualifications and experience levels.

In May 2016, my husband and I bought a home in the suburbs of New York City. 

We had lived in Manhattan for years before that, so the move was a big adjustment. It was an exciting time in our lives — and it felt like a fresh start. I remember thinking to myself, now would be the perfect time to make some positive lifestyle changes.

We decided we wanted to kill a few bad habits — like watching too much TV and buying unhealthy lunches every day — and vowed to form better ones.

Sure, it had crossed our minds that we'd probably also save some money along the way...which felt like a bonus...but that wasn't our main motivation at the time, so we hadn't thought too much about the financial implications.

But a few months in, we noticed a difference in our back account balances and credit card bills. Turned out those lifestyle changes had saved us way more than we thought they would.

Here are the six small changes we made — and how much money each one saved us per month:

SEE ALSO: Seeing my husband's 401(k) balance was a huge wake-up call about the way I save money

Change 1: We started preparing and bringing lunch to work.

Before we moved, we almost never brought lunches with us to work.

Every day, I'd run to the pizzeria next door to my office for a salad (which was always drenched in fattening dressing), or the sandwich shop a few blocks away for a (greasy) veggie panini. Sometimes I'd order sushi or Thai food.

My husband Tyler did the same.

We decided when we moved into our new home that we wanted to be healthier, and we began preparing lunch at home and bringing it with us to work.

No, we don't do this every day — but our goal is to make lunch at least four times per week. As a result, our waistlines felt slimmer, and our wallets fatter.

To figure out exactly how much we were saving, we looked at our credit card statements and did the math. Before, we were each spending, on average, $11 a day on lunch. That's a total of $110 per workweek, which is about $485 per month (if a month has 4.4 weeks).

Once we began buying groceries every Sunday night, we were only spending about $25 total on ingredients we used to make our lunches for the week.

So even with ordering or going out for lunch once per workweek, we were only spending a total of about $205 per month on lunch food.

Monthly savings: about $280

Change 2: We started cooking dinner more often.

For the same reasons we started making lunch, we made an effort to cook dinner at home more often.

When we lived in the city, we had a tiny kitchen with an even smaller refrigerator (I'm talking mini fridge!) and almost no counter space. Oh, and did I mention that we didn't have an oven? Don't get me wrong — it was a great apartment, but it wasn't all that conducive to cooking.

So we ordered in — almost every night. It was a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad habit.

Not only were we eating not-so-healthy food, but we were spending a ridiculous amount of money.

About six nights per week, we'd dish out around $25 for dinner, including the tip for the delivery person. (And one night a week, on average, we'd go out for a nicer dinner — which we still do.) We were spending $150 for six dinners per week. That's about $660 per month.

Once we decided to make a change, we continued going out about once a week for dinner — but for the six nights we'd cook, we would spend about $50 on groceries per week. That brought our dinner spending total down to $220 per month (not including the four or five times we go out).

Monthly savings: about $440

Change 3: We gave up cable.

We've never been all that into watching TV, but a few months before we moved, we started to get into this habit of picking up the remote whenever we had some free time, which wasn't the best use of our time. So, Tyler and I decided that we'd try living without our $100-a-month cable. We do still have Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime (which we've been subscribing to for years) — so it's not as if we're totally depriving ourselves.

Monthly savings: $100

Change 4: We quit the gym.

Yeah, this one might seem a bit counterintuitive, but bear with me.

Before the move, I had had a gym membership for years, for which I paid about $50 a month (with my corporate discount).  Tyler was paying $100 a month for his membership to the same health club.

Once we moved and I realized we lived about 20 minutes from the closest branch of that gym, I knew I'd never go. (When we lived in Manhattan, the gym was hardly a block away, so it didn't take much time or effort to get there.)

So we decided to invest in some equipment and create a (very makeshift) home gym. Luckily, my parents donated a bunch of stuff they stopped using, and we hit up a sports retailer that was going out of business for some deeply discounted equipment — and voilà, we now have a home gym in our basement.

Sure, we made a small investment up front, but it paid for itself pretty quickly.

Monthly savings: $150 (plus gas money!)

Change 5: We joined the library.

We had always been big readers — but once we moved and started having a much longer commute to work (and no more cable TV), we were blowing through books like it was nobody's business.

The first month alone, I had ordered five books on my Kindle. I spent $68. Tyler bought a few books himself, spending closer to $30.

We ultimately decided to join the town library. The membership is free, and as long as we return them on time, so are the books. You can check out a physical copy or the e-book version of most titles.

Monthly savings: about $100

Change 6: I started walking to work.

I now work remotely, but for a while after making the move to the suburbs, I was commuting to and from Manhattan every day. So, to support my goal of getting healthier, I decided I'd start walking from the train station to my office, and back at the end of the day.

That meant I could give up my unlimited MetroCard for the subway, which (at the time) cost $116.50 per month.

Tyler's office wasn't walking distance from the station, so giving up his MetroCard wasn't an option.

I'd still occasionally take the subway when I was in a rush or the weather was bad, but no more than once a week — so I began spending only $11 or so per month on the subway.

It is important to note that commuting meant I did have the added expense of my monthly Long Island Rail Road pass ($285) — however, when I lived in Manhattan, I was constantly taking cabs everywhere, even though I had that unlimited MetroCard. I did the math and was a bit embarrassed to find I was spending up to $300 a month on Ubers, Lyfts and yellow cabs...so that was a wash.

Monthly savings: about $105

Adding it all up:

In total, Tyler and I began saving about $1,175 per month by making these six small changes in our routines.

Though we didn't set out to save this large chunk of change, we certainly aren't complaining about it.

Homeownership is wonderful, but very expensive — and we know how important it is to have money set aside for emergency repairs and any other unexpected expenses, so we've decided to put that extra $1,200 a month into savings. Knowing we have that small cushion helps us sleep better at night.

The extra exercise and healthier meals are probably helping, too.

• With former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats' resignation Sunday, the Trump administration continues to see record amounts of turnover among high-ranking officials.
• Turnover, though not necessarily a bad thing in industries like fast-food and retail, is always costly for companies. US employers pay $15,000 on average to replace a worker, according to The Work Institute.
• When Uber saw many executives leave the company, it made strides to regain public opinion. Tesla, like the White House, does not appear to make any changes despite the high rates of executive turnover.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

If the White House were a major corporation, the executive turnover would have investors shaking.

The now former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats recently joined 48 other Trump administration executives in leaving their positions, per the Brookings Institution. The think tank calculates that something like 75% of influential executive office positions have turned over since Trump took office, either by way of promotion or resignation. In total, the Trump administration's senior turnover is the highest of any president in the last hundred years.

In general, when senior members leave an organization, morale dips, as workers typically stop working until a new leader arrives with their set of goals and expectations. Investors, too, worry when executives depart soon after a new CEO takes helm, according to research from business advisory firm Gartner.

Read more:AOC's squad always has her back — and it shows the power of making friends at work

"Everyone sits around and waits until there is a new person in charge," Brian Kropp, chief of HR research at Gartner, told Business Insider. His research finds that 64% of employees report waiting to be told by new leaders where to direct their efforts after a senior executive departs, and 71% waste time with unnecessary assignments within the time it takes to replace them.

"That waiting creates more problems," he added: "Investments aren't made, decisions aren't made."

Turnover: What's normal, what's alarming

Turnover itself is not always a measure of bad company performance.

For industries like fast food and retail, high turnover is to be expected: anywhere from 60% to a whopping 100% of employees in these sectors will leave in a year, the consultancy Compensation Force has found. Nationwide workplace turnover rates are at an all-time high, and employees for prominent companies like Amazon and Google only stick around for about a year on average. Federal government jobs typically see the lowest rates of turnover — with just 1.3% of employees leaving in a year.

Companies pay a price when an employee leaves. On average, US employers pay $15,000 to replace a worker, according to The Work Institute's 2019 Retention Report. There are the overhead costs of hiring a recruiter, paying for a drug test, and other onboarding and hiring costs that can amount to six to nine months of salary at the particular position.

The case of leadership turnover: Uber, Tesla, and the White House

Not all companies react the same to high rates of senior executive turnover. Uber faced a crisis in 2017 after numerous scandals caused 15 execs to depart, including CEO Travis Kalanick. The company made major outward changes led by a new public face, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi.

Tesla, on the other hand, has executives leave at much higher rates than other major companies, the most notable recent departure being long-tenured CTO JB Straubel. Yet Tesla continues to chug along, due in part to CEO Elon Musk's optimism coupled with his outward lack of worry when executives leave, Anat Lechner, a professor of business management at New York University, told Business Insider.

Read more:The art of a bad deal: A negotiations expert breaks down the everyday lessons we can learn from Trump's messy trade war with China

Musk and Trump, who have senior-level talent leave frequently, face risks when leaders walk out the door. The Work Institute estimates it takes one to two years for a senior manager to become fully productive due to the time it takes to learn the ins and outs of the company.

"Good talent take their ideas and capabilities with them," Lechner said. "And their work, loaded on others, is never well-performed."

SEE ALSO: The art of a bad deal: A negotiations expert breaks down the everyday lessons we can learn from Trump's messy trade war with China

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Serena Williams and Alexis Ohanian have a combined net worth of $189 million. Here's how they make and spend their money.

• If you're successful, you probably know you are what you read.
• Many of the most successful people in politics and business read insatiably — think Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, and even Donald Trump.
• We've compiled some of their favorite news outlets and resources to get them ready for the day ahead.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Successful people know they are what they read.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett, for example, spends 80% of his day reading. And President Trump is reported to be an "insatiable" consumer of news, getting up at 6 a.m. to watch TV and then read print newspapers like the New York Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, according to Business Insider. He also reads conservative outlet Breitbart, according to the Associated Press.

So what is the first source that highly influential people check when they wake up?

Here are the resources leaders across industries use to sustain their morning reading habits.

SEE ALSO: 18 people who prove you don't have to wake up incredibly early to be successful

DON'T MISS: 18 quick and easy daily habits that can significantly improve your life

Warren Buffett starts his days with an assortment of national and local news

The billionaire investor tells CNBC he reads the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the New York Times, USA Today, the Omaha World-Herald, and the American Banker in the mornings.

That's a hefty list to get through.

US President Donald Trump prefers print to online media.

The US president has never been much of a bibliophile.

Despite not reading books regularly, President Trump gets his news the old-fashioned way: print media. According to Politico, his staff collects articles from newspapers ranging from the New York Post to the New York Times, and even prints out stories for him to read. President Trump likes to underline, star, and circle anything he reads.

To submit an article to the president, aides must run it through his staff secretary's office. If the article is approved, it gets added to a folder of other news stories, usually an inch or two thick.

Despite this, aides manage to sneak articles his way in case they won't be approved, despite former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly's attempts to shut down those unofficial channels.

No matter what Trump reads, it's often about himself. Reuters has reported that, when it comes to briefings, aides include the president's name as much as possible, "because he keeps reading if he's mentioned."

Mark Zuckerberg, unsurprisingly, starts his day on Facebook.

In a Facebook Live session with Jerry Seinfeld, the Facebook cofounder and CEO tells the comedian that the very first thing he does in the morning, even before he gets out of bed to use the bathroom or puts in his contact lenses, is check his phone.

He says that he starts by looking at Facebook — "I like to know what's going on in the world" — and then checks his messages on Messenger and What'sApp. "On a good, calm day it'll probably take no more than a few minutes," he tells Seinfeld.

Jeffrey Immelt reads his papers in a very particular fashion.

"I typically read the Wall Street Journal, from the center section out," the former CEO told Fast Company. "Then I'll go to the Financial Times and scan the FTIndex and the second section. I'll read the New York Times business page and throw the rest away. I look at USA Today, the sports section first, business page second, and life third. I'll turn to Page Six of the New York Post and then a little bit on business."

Bill Gates reads the national papers and gets a daily news digest.

The Microsoft cofounder gets a daily news digest with a wide array of topics, and he gets alerts for stories on Berkshire Hathaway, where he sits on the board of directors. Gates also reads the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and the Economist cover-to-cover, according to an interview with Fox Business.

Jonah Peretti reads the business or sports section of the New York Times on his morning commute.

The Buzzfeed founder and CEO wakes up around 8:30 a.m. and heads into the office with the sports or business section of the New York Times, he tells The Wire. He also takes New York Magazine. (Subscriptions to the New Yorker and Economist fell by the wayside after he had twins.)

Still, like many younger leaders, the principle way he discovers information is through Twitter and Facebook.

Kara Goldin wakes up early to check email.

Hint Water's founder and CEO considers her morning a critical part of her day and devotes the wee hours of the morning to checking her email and schedule.

She says she heads straight to her inbox at 5:30 a.m. because "doing this gives me a clear understanding of what the next 12 hours are going to look like and what my priorities are once I get to the office."

Howard Schultz has kept his morning-reading routine intact for 25 years.

In 2006, the Starbucks executive chairman told CNNMoney that he gets up between 5 a.m. and 5:30 a.m., makes coffee, and then picks up three newspapers: the Seattle Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. The habit must work, because he's stuck with it for more than two decades.

Richard Branson rises at 5 a.m. to get a head start on his reading.

"I find the period of quiet, before most of the world logs on, to be great time to catch up on news and reply to emails," the Virgin Group founder writes in a post on Virgin.com. "These early hours give me the opportunity to start each day with a fresh and organized slate."

Kat Cole logs into social media first thing.

Cole, the group president of FOCUS Brands, the parent company of brands like Auntie Anne's, Carvel, and Cinnabon, wakes up every morning at 5 a.m. and checks her calendar, all of her major social media platforms, news sites, blogs, emails, and any other messages that may have come in overnight.

"I'm looking for relevant news, urgent business and team needs, updates from startups I invest in, or anything awesome to get my brain going and know what's going on in the world," she says.

Kevin O'Leary catches up on business news during his morning workout.

The "Shark Tank" investor writes that he wakes up every morning at 5:45 a.m., checks the Asian and European bond markets, and watches business television for 45 minutes while he works out. He then spends another hour from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m reading the latest business news.

"Knowledge is power," O'Leary says, "and it's important to have a 360-degree view of the financial climate all over the world."

Gary Vaynerchuk devotes most of his attention to Twitter.

"I start my day by consuming quite a lot of information," the entrepreneur and social-media guru writes.

He reads TechMeme, the email newsletter MediaREDEF, Business Insider, ESPN, and Nuzzel, an aggregator of headlines and links that his network is sharing.

Next he heads to Twitter, where he spends "a significant amount of my morning responding to people and starting conversations."

Lastly, he checks Instagram to see what his friends are up to.

Disney CEO Bob Iger wakes up super early to read.

Disney CEO Bob Iger wakes up painfully early to read and exercise, according to Inc.

He gets up at 4:30 a.m., reads newspapers, checks his email, and surfs the web for a bit, he told The New York Times in a 2009 interview.

Alison Griswold, Max Nisen, and Jenna Goudreau contributed to an earlier version of this article.

• The drugmaker Mylan is combining with a Pfizer unit that makes off-patent drugs like Viagra. The all-stock deal was announced on Monday and aims to revitalize Mylan's flagging stock. 
• Three tough questions from Wall Street analysts on a Monday conference call show why the spinoff could face an uphill battle. 
• Analysts questioned the deal at a big-picture level and from a growth perspective. They also asked about difficulties in the broader business environment.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

A major deal announced on Monday will combine generic drugmaker Mylan with a unit of Pfizer that makes off-patent products like Viagra.

The all-stock merger is a bid to revitalize Mylan, best known for making the EpiPen allergy shot. Mylan's shares have lost almost half their value over the past year, though they surged nearly 13% on Monday after the deal was announced. Pfizer's stock fell nearly 4% and then 5% on Tuesday.

The deal is already facing some tough questions from Wall Street.

In a Monday morning conference call, analysts asked crucial questions about the deal, including about investor confidence, growth opportunities and the underlying business model.

Executives occasionally got testy, seeking to portray the spinoff as a transformational new corporate entity. 

"This is about enhancing every aspect of our organization, starting with the Board of Directors, starting with management, starting all the way down the line," said longtime Mylan Chairman Robert Coury, who will stay on at the new organization as executive chairman. 

Other familiar faces at the top of the new company include Rajiv Malik, a longtime exec at Mylan. Michael Goettler, a pharma industry veteran who serves as group president of Pfizer's Upjohn business, will be the new CEO. 

Notable absences from that list include Heather Bresch, Mylan's CEO who led the company during its EpiPen scandal. Bresch will be retiring, the companies said. Mylan CFO Ken Parks is also out and the new company is searching for a CFO.

Read more:The 2 big pharma companies behind Viagra and EpiPen are betting an unusual deal can create a new kind of drug company that you'll actually want to invest in. One slide reveals why.

Read on for the three biggest questions analysts asked that reveal key challenges facing the new company

1. Will the deal win over investors?

With this new deal, a key motivation is to boost Mylan, which has seen shares drop by roughly 40% over the last 12 months.

"What gives you confidence that investors will be able to become comfortable with this profile and you can get a more appropriate valuation for this larger company?" JPMorgan analyst Chris Schott asked execs on the Monday conference call.

The answer Schott got back was a bit testy. 

"Chris, this is really 180-degree honestly new profile from where we were prior to this announcement," an exec responded. "If you think about everything that shareholders have been talking to me about, this transaction checks every single box that they have discussed with me."

Mylan's business model "is going to change dramatically," he added, by growing and diversifying the new company.

2. Does the new company have opportunities for growth?

Pfizer's Upjohn unit makes medications like the erectile-dysfunction pill Viagra and the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor: well-known products with brand-name recognition but that, lacking patent protection, can no longer command high price tags. 

Those drugs still have some opportunities to make money, "but ultimately, it's a fixed portfolio, and these assets sort of all have finite life," Raymond James analyst Elliot Wilbur said. He asked execs: How will the new company go on to generate growth over time?

Executives said they disagreed with the characterization, saying these products could grow as the population ages and patients in markets like China look for trusted, high-quality brands. 

"Now if you look at combining the two companies, that's where the magic comes in" because Pfizer's Upjohn has a leading position in China and Mylan has a different kind of footprint, an exec said. "So it's truly synergistic." 

Read more:Two huge drugmakers are spinning off iconic brands like Advil, ChapStick and Emergen-C with nearly $13 billion in sales — and it's part of a growing trend

3. How strong is the underlying business?

Towards the end of the Monday conference call, UBS's Navin Jacob asked Mylan and Pfizer execs about the financial rationale for the combination. 

Several years ago, around 2013, Pfizer considered breaking the company into two firms, one dedicated to more lucrative, patent-protected medicines and another for lower-margin, off-patent products. 

The plan was abandoned because the financials didn't make sense, but the financial environment has only worsened for generic pharmaceuticals, Jacob said. Because generic drugs aren't protected by patents, they typically have lower prices and face lots of competition, and generic companies have said it's been especially hard to make money in the US generics market in recent years. 

So, Jacob asked, what changed so that it now makes sense to separate the off-patent unit? 

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla defended the move, saying it did not represent "financial engineering" and instead was a way to create more value for both Pfizer and Mylan. Bourla also said that he and other execs "spent the last hour explaining the substantial benefits" of the new deal.

Is the spinoff of Pfizer's Upjohn unit coming "2-3 years too late?" Jacob, who has a "neutral" rating for Pfizer, asked on Tuesday. "Our first impression on the financials does not suggest much to be excited about." But because the deal is a complicated one, his team continues to review its merits, Jacob added as a caveat. 

• Parents are giving up legal guardianship of their kids to get them a potential leg up in college admissions, according to a new ProPublica investigation.
• ProPublica identified cases around the Chicago suburbs where parents would hand over guardianship of their kids to friends or relatives. Students would then qualify for financial aid designed for poor students by filing as financially independent.
• ProPublica identified more than 40 cases of parents giving up guardianship to get aid in the suburbs of Chicago, but suspect the practice may be happening across the country. Their investigation is ongoing.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

Suburban parents are giving up legal guardianship of their children so they can qualify for financial aid meant for low-income families in another sign of how competitive the college-admissions process has become, according to a ProPublica investigation.

Parents identified in the investigation reportedly transferred legal guardianship of their children to relatives or friends during junior or senior year of high school. The practice allows students to qualify for need-based government and university financial aid by applying as financially independent of their families — and it's technically legal.

Read more:The SAT is adding an 'adversity score' that will quietly let colleges track a student's wealth and privilege

The practice is another tactic parents are using to gain any advantage they can when it comes to getting into increasingly more competitive (and pricey) universities. This news follows an FBI investigation back in March that ended with 50 wealthy parents charged for bribing universities and forging documents to get their kids into elite schools.

ProPublica's Illinois bureau identified more than 40 cases of parents giving up guardianship to get aid in the suburbs of Chicago as of January 2018, though the nonprofit group suspects the practice may be happening across the country. The investigation is ongoing.

"It's a scam," Andy Borst, director of undergraduate admissions at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, told ProPublica. "Wealthy families are manipulating the financial-aid process to be eligible for financial aid they would not be otherwise eligible for. They are taking away opportunities from families that really need it."

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign identified 14 applicants who obtained financial aid through filing as financially independent. Business Insider has reached out to the university for additional comment.

According to Department of Education data from 2016-17, 80% of federal Pell Grant student aid went to families earning $40,000 a year or less. With the cost of college and levels of student debt already reaching record highs, poorer students attend college at much lower rates. Just 32% of students from the bottom fifth percentile of earners go to college, compared to 78% of students coming from the top fifth income distribution.

A college degree is almost essential, however, to getting a high-paying job: college grads earn anywhere from 38% to 133% more than high-school grads, depending on the state.

"This is the first time I have heard of something so brazen," Mark Kantrowitz, a leading financial-aid expert, tole ProPublica. "It's completely unethical."

SEE ALSO: 8 startling facts that show just how hard the student-debt crisis is hurting black Americans

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Stewart Butterfield, co-founder of Slack and Flickr, says 2 beliefs have brought him the greatest success in life

• I'm an American who lived in Sweden for five years.
• During my time there, I noticed several cultural differences between the US and Sweden when it comes to work culture, family dynamics, and other areas.
• Here are 10 of the biggest cultural differences I observed between the US and Sweden.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

In 2013, I packed my bags and moved from New York City to Gothenburg, Sweden.

After spending two years going back and forth to visit my now-husband, I was ready to take the plunge and move there long-term. 

Five years later, I moved back to the United States, and my time abroad has really made some differences between the two countries more apparent. The US and Sweden are similar in many ways, but they differ in key ways that can be hard to recognize if you have not experienced them by yourself.

Read on to see 10 of the biggest cultural differences between the US and Sweden, from someone who's lived in both countries.

SEE ALSO: I moved to the US from China — here are the biggest cultural differences I've noticed between the 2 countries

DON'T MISS: I'm an American who's lived in Europe for 10 years — and I don't miss these 5 aspects of American culture at all

There is less hierarchy in Sweden than there is in the US

I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered the lack of hierarchy in the Swedish work culture compared to previous experiences in the US.

In many companies, you can find the CEO and other management sitting in a communal area with the rest of the staff. In some companies, the work culture can be seen as a bit less formal than the US but extremely polite. You can easily directly contact top executives and see them out with their colleagues for happy hour.

In the US, this is certainly not as common. Unless you're in the startup world, it's rare to see top-level management socializing with junior executives.

Taking a gap year or more is very normal after high school

Unlike in the US, if you plan to attend college in Sweden, it's extremely common to take some time off post-graduation. 

Many Swedes will take a minimum-wage job for a year or so to save up money to travel before they head off to college. Many of my friends worked in retail, hospitality, and grocery stores prior to traveling to popular destinations for backpackers such as Asia, Australia, and South America. They all had many great stories to share and actually felt ready to return to school after taking some time off.

In the US, taking a gap year is a lot less common. The traditional path is for students to enter college right after graduating from high school. As a result, many teenagers are unsure of what they want to study prior to enrolling in college, and many students end up changing their major partway through their college careers.

In Sweden, the sun is to be worshipped

Having cold, long, and dark winters sparks a special relationship with Swedes and the sun.

As soon as the first sign of spring hits, you will be sure to see hibernation come to an end. It's not uncommon to see people standing against building walls soaking in the sun or at the beach taking a dip in the sea even when it's 60 degrees.

As a person who grew up on the East Coast of the US, I can say that this was not a common sight when the weather switched over. Although we still experience harsh winters in the US, my relationship with the sun did not feel the same as it did in Sweden. Even after moving back to the US, I can still say I spend as much time outdoors as possible when the weather is nice.

In the US, people leave their shoes on inside the home

I have yet to enter a Swedish home where taking off your shoes is not the norm.

If you walk into someones home with your shoes on without asking, it will definitely be frowned upon and understandably so. After all, the weather conditions are not ideal for keeping a clean home. Regardless if you're at a house party rocking your favorite pair of shoes, you will likely be expected to take them off.

Most Americans do not have the same expectation. Many Americans like to keep their shoes on inside the home and do not expect their guest to remove their shoes either.

Alcohol isn't available 24/7 like in the US

Depending on the state, most Americans are used to being able to pick up alcohol 24/7 at a variety of stores.

In Sweden, there is only one option, the government-run company Systembolaget. Don't wait until the last minute to pick up a bottle of wine for the dinner you planned. Best case scenario, the store will be open between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m. on weekdays, 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. The lines at Systembolaget on a Friday after work can be comically long, as everyone is rushing to make their purchase before closing time.

My fellow American expat friends and I would get a big kick out of this. After living in New York City, this certainly took some getting used to.

Swedish people are very literal

Americans often use superlatives and hyperbole when describing something, while Swedes tend to use language very literally.

In my experience, Swedes typically only describe something as "the best," "excellent," or "outstanding" if they actually mean it.

My husband's family often pokes fun at me when I say things like "this is amazing" or "this is so good." I never noticed how often Americans use superlatives until I moved to Sweden. When a Swede says something is "unbelievable," you know they truly mean it and — they wouldn't use the word to describe something that's less than superior.

In Sweden, it's never too cold to go outside.

Think it's too cold to go for a walk? Guess again.

I have been out on several treks in the forest while it's been 12 degrees Fahrenheit outside, and let me tell you, coming from someone who absolutely hates being cold, this seemed like torture.

But as the Swedes say, there's no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothes. So don't complain, bundle up and get out there.

I must admit, the contrast when you return to a warm home makes it all worth it. I can't speak for all Americans, but growing up in a place with harsh winters typically meant most people in my community stayed indoors. You won't see Swedes gallivanting around in the cold, but the weather certainly won't be a deterrent for partaking in outside activities.

They take coffee breaks seriously in Sweden

Who doesn't love a good pastry in the middle of the day? Swedes don't just meet for coffee, they meet for fika— a time to meet up to enjoy some coffee or tea with a side of something sweet.

Many companies even have specific days of the week dedicated to bringing in fika for the entire office. On those days, it's tradition for workers to bring home-baked goods that are made from scratch. If everyone else in the office puts in the effort, you are expected to do the same.

I don't know of a similar type of designated coffee break in American work culture. And if people are bringing in food, they're more likely to buy snacks from the store — home-baked goods are seen as a bonus.

New parents in Sweden get way more parental leave

Both men and women get parental leave in Sweden. Not only that, but together, parents get 480 paid parental leave days to share until the child is 8 years old.

This reinforces the Swedish value of spending time with one's family. Those living and working legally in Sweden generally get 80% of their pay while on parental leave.

In the US, some companies are beginning to give more generous parental leave benefits, but as of now, the US does not mandate a standard length. In fact, the US is the only developed country in the world that doesn't mandate employers offer paid leave for new mothers, let alone new fathers.

Workers in the US have nowhere near the work-life balance they have in Sweden

After reading about Sweden's generous parental leave policy, you may not be shocked to learn that work-life balance is extremely important to Swedish people.

Over there, you will even get paid to stay home with your sick child if needed. This is called VAB, or "Vård av barn," which is directly translated to "care of a child." If you need to take your child to school or pick them up, your employer likely won't bat an eye.

On top of that, Swedes are given a minimum of 25 days of paid vacation every year. In the US, it is not mandatory for employers to provide any paid vacation, making it one of the only countries in the world— developed or otherwise — without a policy.

All that is to say, that when it comes to encouraging a work-life balance, the US has a lot of catching up to do.

• As the CEO of Restaurant Brands International, Daniel Schwartz oversees Burger King, Tim Hortons, and Popeyes.
• Schwartz started as CFO at Burger King in his late 20s before becoming CEO at 32.
• He said that he considers his two greatest skills to be the ability to spot talent, particularly at a young age, and to move people into roles where they can flourish.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

When Daniel Schwartz became the chief financial officer of Burger King, he had previously managed only one person.

Schwartz started his career at the investment firm 3G Capital, which acquired Burger King in 2010. 3G's founders embraced young talent, to his benefit, and managing partner Alex Behring made him CFO when he was only 29. He performed well and got the CEO job a few years later. Schwartz's performance worked well enough that it led to the formation of Restaurant Brands International, which now contains BK, Tim Hortons, and Popeyes.

In an episode of Business Insider's podcast "This Is Success," Schwartz said that the biggest challenge of his career was making the transition from his financial role at 3G into a high-stakes management role, but that he used the firm's partners as his mentors. He said the advice was "all about managing the people and not the business, and making sure you focus on a few things. Stay focused, don't spread yourself too thin, but ultimately make sure you have the best, best people on your team."

He said that this is manifested in two skills he's honed: spotting talent, and putting people in the right roles.

Read more: The CEO who took over Burger King at age 32 says you can determine the root of all work problems by considering 3 scenarios

The day of the interview, Schwartz had recently visited Cornell, where he was personally meeting with students at a job fair. He takes a hands-on approach to recruiting, and his experience has taught him not to overlook someone because they are young. Schwartz said that being smart isn't enough, and that he looks for hires who are self-motivated to work hard, open-minded, and humble. "I think if you're working really hard, harder than all your peers, you'll eventually be in a position to do something big at some point," he said.

He wants Restaurant Brands International to work as a meritocracy, and he wants to not only reward initiative with increased responsibilities, but ensure that his managers place employees in roles that allow them to best utilize their skills, and move them into a new job if the role doesn't take.

"By doing that, I think that's what's enabled the company to move at the pace that it's moved," Schwartz said.

Schwartz himself has moved positions, going from CEO to executive chairman of RBI and co-chairman of the company's board of directors on Jan. 23, 2019. 

Subscribe to "This Is Success" on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you listen. And listen to the full Daniel Schwartz episode below.

A version of this story was originally published on December 24, 2018.

SEE ALSO: The new CEO behind Burger King, Popeyes, and Tim Hortons reveals his plans for the future of the chains

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: We tried Burger King in Japan — where you can order hot dogs and beer

• Steve Case is the billionaire founding CEO of AOL and the head of Washington, DC-based venture-capital firm Revolution.
• Case said AOL's initial public offering had little fanfare and that it took a decade for him to feel like it was successful.
• He knew he had finally broken through when, after AOL went down for a day, it became the top news story.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

America Online became iconic in the 1990s, helping to make browsing the internet part of everyday life for millions of Americans.

It was also the first internet company to go public, when it listed on the Nasdaq exchange in March, 1992. "But nobody really cared," founding CEO Steve Case told Business Insider for a recent episode of its podcast, "This Is Success." He said most traders and the business media saw it as "just like some quirky little computer services company going public."

AOL began its life in 1985, as a company with the much less catchy name of Quantum Computer Services. Case explained that AOL's rise is a case study in the patience and perseverance required in bringing about massive shifts to an industry or even society as a whole. "It was "easily a decade" after AOL started, he said, when he finally felt like his company was a success. This was on a day when AOL was down and the country freaked out.

Case helped build Quantum Computer Services with tech entrepreneurs Jim Kimsey and Marc Seriff. He wasn't an engineer, but rather a visionary and business strategist. In his early 20s, he read futurist Alvin Toffler's book "The Third Wave," which imagined a world where people would be able to use computers to communicate with people around the world, creating communities. It seemed like a wild idea at the time, and he didn't nearly have the skills or resources available yet to make it happen, but he knew that he had to help make it happen.

Case told us that, as the CEO of AOL (the name change happened in 1991), the day "where it just felt like we arrived," happened in 1996. AOL shifted from an hourly fee model to a more affordable and convenient monthly flat rate. Case and his team knew it would attract more users, but not as many who joined. AOL was down for 19 hours, keeping six million people from using the internet. "It could be called the silence of the techno nerds," Peter van Sant reported for CBS News. As that turn of phrase proves, the internet and the culture around it still had a ways to go for total permeation of American society, but it was certainly a turning point.

Case said, "the headline in almost every newspaper in the country was that AOL was down, and it was striking because it was only a few years before that nobody knew or cared what we were doing. If we had been down for a month, nobody would've noticed." It was a bad experience to be down for so long, but it was a validating one as well, after 10 years of being dismissed.

As Case said, "maybe there's some part of my personality that's sort of, when people say it can't be done, that's sort of the challenge, and I say, 'OK, well, we'll see about that.'"

Listen to the full episode and subscribe to "This Is Success" on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.

A version of this story appeared on Oct. 19, 2018.

SEE ALSO: Billionaire AOL cofounder Steve Case says we're at the start of the internet's third wave, and he's laying the groundwork to benefit from it

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Here's when Steve Case knew he wanted to be an entrepreneur

• Danielle Roberts is the co-founder of Boomer Benefits, an insurance agency that helps customers understand Medicare. She co-founded and runs the business with her brother, Dave.
• Many people are amazed to hear that she works so closely with her brother.
• But Roberts says that working with a sibling can have unexpected benefits. They're already allies, have common ground, and are able to speak frankly with each other. 
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

"If I had to work with my brother, I would shoot him!"

I've heard similar sentiments many times from people who are amazed that I can work in the same building with my brother, let alone run a multi-million-dollar business with him.

And on some days, I can really relate. 

Yet our differences often end up being the reason we accomplish so much. We've been working together on and off throughout our lives, starting with a car-washing business in our neighborhood when we were kids.

While we always work well together when we want to achieve a financial goal, there's no question that we have been uber-competitive for decades. We have fought over everything from who gets the last Girl Scouts Thin-Mint cookie to how big our next office space needs be. Our quarreling has helped us to become better negotiators, to learn how to compromise and to work harder to improve our skills.  

If you've ever thought about working with a family member, you might be surprised to find that the very things that drive you crazy about your sibling are also the things that might help your business succeed. Here are some of the ways to make a sibling relationship work in growing your business.

Pursue your separate strengths

Even as kids, our separate skill sets worked in our favor. Dave would knock on the potential customer's door and offer to wash their car for three bucks, and I'd stand in the driveway with a smile, a bucket, and a sponge, ready to implement if they said yes. 

Thirty-five years later, we operate the same way, with Dave handling sales, management, and contracting while I oversee marketing, SEO, and human resources. We divide our business duties along those lines, and we rarely stray from them.

By purposely focusing on tasks that play to your natural strengths, you'll avoid a lot of conflicts that would create unnecessary drama. Trusting each to accomplish the individual tasks that you are most well-suited for will propel your business forward.

Read more: 11 ways to help your kids become wealthier, according to an author who spent years studying millionaires

Capitalize on being natural allies

Dr. Claire Hughes, the author of "Social Understanding and Social Lives," said that despite natural sibling rivalry among children, siblings are our natural allies who are often on our same wavelength. 

This has never been truer for us than when we decided to take our business online in an industry where Medicare insurance has been sold across the kitchen table for decades. While you can earn a living doing this, it's not a very scalable business model.

We theorized that as baby boomers began to turn 65, they would be ready to buy these products online. Industry old-timers laughed at this, but we stuck together, believing it would work, and committing to it until it did. 

You can achieve a lot because you and your sibling are already in each other's corner. Being allies gives you heightened perspective on everything from your competition to your banking decisions because there is always someone you trust to bounce your ideas off and share your opinions with.  

Take advantage of the common ground

There are certain things that you and your sibling might have in common due to growing up in the same family. For us, there's a similar work ethic and approach to finances. We both love to earn money via personal effort, and we are both savers who believe in reinvesting profits back into the agency and helping our employees get ahead.

These are pretty important in a business partnership, so before you team up with anyone, make sure that you and that person have the same views on how many hours you should put in each week and when you'll take money home versus when you'll invest it back into the business. Different perspectives on these two things can quickly kill a struggling new partnership.

Make a list of your other common traits that could work in your favor and exploit them.

Get plenty of away-from-each-other time

Except for larger family get-togethers, we rarely spend any time together outside of work — and we couldn't be happier about it. After all, we spend a good 50+ hours a week together and that can get old for almost anyone.

If you plan to start a business with someone in your family, find the line of separation and be sure to give yourself mental breaks for one another. Have your own friends and your own hobbies and your own lives outside of work. 

When Monday rolls around, you'll look forward to seeing your relative and be ready to discuss new ideas, work on your business plan or make big decisions. It's one of our most productive times of the week, and we capitalize on it.

Read more: I'm a recruiter who's placed hundreds of senior professionals. Here are 5 things hiring managers know that job seekers don't.

Be brutally honest

Being siblings will allow you a level of transparency that you might not have if you started your business with someone else. You can state your frank opinions without worrying about what your business partner will think. You don't have to mince words.

It's amazing how much this helps to get to the bottom of any problem or project quickly. We can vehemently disagree on something and an hour later we are asking each other what's for lunch.

I doubt that either of us could accomplish that level of acceptance if our business partner wasn't our sibling. At the end of the day, even if we disagree, he's still my brother.

Celebrate your wins together

There's something really special about achieving a milestone with someone who has known you all your life. You remember the smallest ancient things, like teaming up on Mom to get her to agree to let you buy a trampoline if you paid for it with your own money. Then you remember the really big things, like the day your first six-figure deposit hit your company checking account.

You may be celebrating far bigger achievements these days, but you never forget where you came from and you come to respect the synergy that got you here.

Going into business with a sibling is not an option for everyone, but if you've ever considered it, you might look at the differences between you and ask yourself: Could those differences be your strengths in a business partnership? You might just find that the things that exhaust you about your sibling are the exact things your company needs to thrive.

SEE ALSO: Fashion designer Rebecca Minkoff, who doesn't believe in mentors, explains what made her success story different from other struggling fashion designers

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Kylie Jenner is the world's second highest-paid celebrity. Here's how she makes and spends her $1 billion.

• Financial stability is a major factor in Americans' decision to get married.
• We asked experts to weigh in on the biggest financial advantages of tying the knot.
• They said marriage comes with a number of monetary benefits, including potentially lower tax rates and better insurance options.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

When it comes to the qualities people look for in a mate, wealth alone is far from the deciding factor.

That said, there are several financially-related reasons people get married, from the tax benefits both partners receive to the professional opportunities that marriage can open up.

According to a survey by The Ascent, the most attractive money-related traits are those that pertain to conscientious financial habits — having savings goals, following a budget, and maintaining full-time employment took the top three spots on the list.

It's no surprise, then, that financial stabilityis one of the biggest make-or-break factors in the decision to tie the knot for American couples.

We spoke to experts in personal finance and relationships to learn the biggest reasons walking down the aisle may make good fiscal sense. Here are the top money-related reasons people get married.

SEE ALSO: The 12 biggest money-related reasons people get divorced

DON'T MISS: 9 signs your spouse is spending more money than you think

Lower tax rates

Married individuals who file their taxes jointly enjoy wider tax brackets than those who are single or married filing separately.

"These larger brackets keep more money at lower tax rates and allow couples to take advantage of a lesser tax burden on their joint incomes, resulting in a lower effective tax rate,"Riley Adams, an accountant and personal finance blogger, told Business Insider.

In layman's terms, you can earn more as a couple and pay less in taxes overall. For example, for the 2019 tax year, a single filer earning between $39,476 and $84,200 would be in the 24% tax bracket. However, a married couple could earn as much as $168,400 in combined income and still be in that same tax bracket.

The income tax benefits are most pronounced when one partner makes significantly more than the other, because the partner with the lower income will drop the other into a lower tax bracket.

A bigger standard deduction

The standard deduction is the dollar figure you can subtract from your earnings before income tax is applied, assuming you don't itemize your deductions.

"As with larger tax brackets, married couples also enjoy twice the size of standard deduction as single filers," Adams said.

The standard deduction for married couples filing jointly is $24,400 for the 2019 tax year, compared to $12,200 for single individuals.

Double the credit card perks

If you know how to play the game, you can effectively double your credit card rewards points or miles.

Brooklyn Lowery, a senior manager with CardRatings.com, told Business Insider that married couples can start with separate credit cards to take advantage of welcome bonuses, then combine their accounts to pool their rewards points.

"For instance, if you're interested in travel rewards, perhaps one of you applies for Chase Sapphire Preferred while the other applies for Chase Freedom," Lowery said. "Both cards earn rewards in the form of Chase Ultimate Rewards points, so you can then combine your earnings under a single account."

Additionally, people with less-than-stellar credit can begin to build their credit score by being added to a well-qualified partner's account.

A shield from capital gains taxes

When you sell a house, you pay taxes on the profits from the sale. If you're married, you have more of a shield against how much you're required to shell out to the government.

"Being married while selling a home that has appreciated in value can be the difference between paying thousands of dollars in taxes and walking away from the closing without Uncle Sam tapping your shoulder to ask for his cut," Adams said. 

Married couples can exclude up to $500,000 of gains realized on their residence from taxation if they've lived in the property for at least two of the last five years. Filers who are single or married filing separately can only exclude $250,000 of gains.

Lower living expenses

When you say 'I do,' you reap the benefits of an economic concept known as the economy of scale. The concept says that as the scale of an operation increases, the cost per item decreases.

Think of your household like a business operation. If you combine it with your partner's, expenses that were once shouldered by both parties — rent, utilities, household staples like dish soap — are shared, and thus become less costly per person.

More affordable insurance

One of the major financial benefits of getting hitched is broadening your healthcare options. If one partner is self-employed or doesn't work outside the home, he or she may be able to secure much more affordable coverage through their spouse's employer than on the open market.

Leslie Tayne, a financial attorney, said that even when both partners have employer-sponsored coverage, one is likely better or more affordable than the other.

"If both partners work for employers that offer health insurance, you'll have more choices and can find the option that suits your family best and is most cost-effective," Tayne said.

And the benefits extend beyond health insurance. On average, married couplesspend 6% less per year on car insurance. Homeowners insurance can be cheaper for couples, too.

Additional retirement benefits

For those who get married later in life, combining finances can be more complicated since each party brings several decades' worth of financial considerations to the relationship. Luckily, Tayne said, marriage comes with many monetary benefits for people of retirement age.

"You can opt to collect a Social Security payment equal to 50% of your spouse's payout in place of yours, even if it's more than you would be receiving on your own," she said. "You can also delay collecting your own benefits and collect the spousal payment to maximize your own payout."

If one spouse qualifies for free Medicare Part A coverage and the other does not, the non-qualified spouse may be able to use the other's Medicare Part A benefits. Once you've been married for a year, you're also entitled to other spousal benefits like disability and survivor benefits.

Greater career flexibility

With two people contributing resources to the household, more options are on the table when it comes to each partner's career.

Let's say you're unhappy with your job. Relationship therapistDiane Strachowski said being married may give you more flexibility to go to back to school or change careers thanks to the cushion of your partner's income. The same goes for starting a family.

"You can decide which partner has the better earning capacity and who is a best fit for staying home or working part time," Starchowski said.

"As a married couple you can take turns as well. Say one person is focused on their career. Once their career is launched, the other can then have a turn. Being married offers more flexibility as a distinct advantage."

Financial stability

Not all money-related reasons for getting married are strictly about dollars and cents. Strachowski said there's a psychological component that comes into play when you feel financially secure in your marriage.

"Married people often feel more responsibility because someone is relying on them, but they also feel more support," Strachowski said. "As a result, you are more willing to take risks in your career and with your finances."

That might translate into the confidence to ask for a raise you deserve or start the new business you've been dreaming of.

• Apple's fiscal third-quarter results showed that its top and bottom lines were heading in different directions — its sales rose, while its profit fell.
• A big part of the reason for that dichotomy was that Apple ramped up its spending on research and development; R&D expenses rose 15% from the same period a year earlier, far outpacing sales growth.
• As a portion of revenue, Apple's spending on R&D is now at its highest level in 18 years.
• But the company has little to show for its investment.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

Going into Apple's earnings report Tuesday, investors and analysts had a lot of concerns, including about such things as its iPhone sales, how the trade war with China was affecting its business there, and the development of its services segment.

One thing few seemed to focus on was its research-and-development spending. But maybe they should have paid it a bit more attention. Apple's earnings fell in its most recent quarter despite a rise in sales, and that incongruous result is largely the product of yet another significant uptick in the company's research efforts.

What's more, Luca Maestri, Apple's chief financial officer, indicated that Apple's R&D investment isn't going to abate anytime soon.

"It's very important to us to continue to invest in the business, particularly on the R&D side, because we always want to bring more innovation into the market, we want to improve the user experience, and differentiate our products and services in the marketplace," Maestri said on a conference call with analysts. "So we will continue to do that."

Apple's sales rose, but profits fell

In its fiscal third quarter, Apple's sales grew 1% from the same period a year earlier to $53.8 billion. But its net income plunged 12.8% to $10 billion over the same time period.

To put it another way, Apple's sales rose by $544 million from its third quarter a year ago to its just-completed third quarter. But its profit fell by $1.48 billion over the same period.

Part of the explanation for the divergence between its top and bottom lines was that its cost of good sold — its direct costs for producing and providing its products and services — rose. Despite having higher sales, Apple's gross profit — the amount of revenue that's left over after accounting for those direct costs —was actually down about 1% from the same period a year earlier. That's likely a function of the price cuts and trade-in incentives that Apple used to help juice sales, particularly in China.

Overall, Apple's direct costs were $738 million higher in this year's third quarter than they were a year earlier, more than wiping out its sales gain.

Apple's R&D spending is enormous and growing

But the next biggest factor weighing on Apple's bottom line was its research-and-development spending. Apple spent $4.3 billion on R&D in its just completed quarter. Compared with last year, that was up by $556 million, or 15%, far outpacing its sales growth.

Perhaps more significantly, Apple spent 7.9% of its revenue on research in the quarter, compared with about 7% in the same period a year earlier. On an annualized basis, that would the highest proportion it had spent on R&D in 18 years. The last time Apple devoted more of its sales to research was in 2001, when it saw a slump in revenue due to the dot-com bust and it was investing heavily in developing the iPod, iTunes, and a new operating system for its Mac computers.

The company's R&D spending was likely boosted as a portion of revenue by the fact that its third-quarter is typically a seasonally slow one. But the jump still reflects a larger trend.

Since Apple's research spending bottomed out in 2012 at less than 2.2% of its sales, the company has consistently increased the amount of its revenue that's going to R&D. For all of last year, it devoted 5.4% of its sales to R&D. In the first nine months of this year, it's devoted 6.2%.

Read this: Apple now spends 18 times as much on research as it did when it launched the iPhone. These 6 charts show how it became an R&D giant.

Part of that increase is a result of declining sales. But it also reflects that fact that Apple is devoting ever more dollars to its R&D effort even as its revenue has fallen. In the first nine months of this year, it's spent $12.1 billion on research, $1.6 billion, or 15.5%, more than it spent in the same period last year.

Apple may not be "harvesting" its investment anytime soon

As it's ramped up its research spending, Apple R&D effort has become one of the largest in the world. But the company doesn't have a lot to show for it, at least not in terms of hit new products. Its last major new product, Apple Watch, debuted in 2015, a year in which its R&D spending was about half what it will likely be this year. Reported investments in cars and interactive televisions, meanwhile, have yet to bear much fruit.

Citigroup's Jim Suva was the only analyst who questioned Apple's R&D effort on Tuesday, wondering what he and other analysts should expect going forward.

"You've been investing a lot, a lot, lot, lot," he said. "Are we at a point now," he continued, "where a lot of the harvesting is going to happen?"

Maestri declined to answer his question directly, but his response suggested Apple isn't going to be moving to harvest mode. The amount of revenue that Apple devotes to all of its operating expenses, which include marketing and administrative costs in addition to research and development, has been "competitive" with other tech companies, he said.

"We want to continue to be competitive, and, at the same time, we will not under-invest in the business," he said.

• Read more about Apple's earnings report:
• Apple's iPhone sales slump continued in Q3, but Mac and wearable growth helped top targets
• Sales of Apple's wearables, home, and accessories products are now almost as big as the Mac business, showing that the Apple Watch and AirPods are big hits
• Apple has finally revealed when its sleek new credit card will launch
• Tim Cook says Apple wants to continue making the Mac Pro in the US following reports that it was shifting production to China

SEE ALSO: Apple is now one of the biggest investors in research and development, and critics are wondering what it's getting for its money

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 5 things wrong with Apple's lightning cable

• Europe has long been considered a backwater for tech, particularly for tech startups, but that's no longer the case, said Roy Saar, a partner with Mangrove Capital Partners.
• The tech scene in Europe and Israel is thriving, and a growing number of startups are reaching valuations of $1 billion or more.
• Europe now has lots of tech talent, growing amounts of venture investing, and a business environment that's more conducive to startups, Saar said.
• While it's not yet ready to take on America's tech giants, some of its companies may have a distinct advantage over their US rivals, he said.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

When it comes to fostering tech startups, Europe doesn't have anything close to Silicon Valley's track record or reputation.

But the the Old World and the New may not be as far apart anymore as people might assume.

Money is flowing into European and Israeli startups, the business environment has become more amenable to entrepreneurship, and there's more tech talent there than ever before, said Roy Saar, a partner with Mangrove Capital Partners, a venture firm that focuses on that part of the world.

A European rival to tech giants such as Amazon or Alphabet is still a long way off, but Europe is already home to a significant and growing number of unicorns, startups worth more than $1 billion, he said.

"We see the gap" between Europe and Silicon Valley "closing and closing fast," Saar told Business Insider in a recent interview. "But it's still a big gap."

Saar has seen first-hand how the tech scene in Europe and Israel has been developing. His firm, Mangrove Capital Partners, was an early backer of Skype, the Luxembourg-based online communications company that was acquired by eBay and then by Microsoft. It later invested in Israel-based Wix, which offers a web development service; it went public in 2013 and is now worth $7.4 billion. More recently, Mangrove backed WalkMe, a newly minted unicorn startup founded by Israeli entrepreneurs that helps companies train their employees to use new software.

Mangrove invests about one-third to one-half of its money in Israeli startups, with the rest of its investments being placed across Europe. One of the firm's latest deals was a $14.5 million early-stage investment it announced earlier this month in Lightico, a startup based in Tel Aviv, Israel, that helps clients distribute legal forms and collect electronic signatures from customers via their mobile devices.

Europe is amassing tech talent

A combination of factors is helping Europe's startup ecosystem mature and develop, Saar said. In particular, there are very good technical schools, particularly in Eastern Europe, that are training students in the skills they need for the latest jobs in the industry, he said. Graduates of those schools are well prepared to work on projects involving artificial intelligence and computer vision, among other things.

What's more, people who have worked for the European or Israeli offices of big American tech companies, including Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook, are leaving to join or found startups in those areas, he said. As they do, they're bringing America's tech culture with them to their new companies, he said.

"They will do what we call the localization of that culture to their local market," he said.

Read this: Intel invests as much as $500 million in startups each year. Here's what it's looking for in new investments, according to one of its top VCs.

Meanwhile, it's becoming easier for founders to do the basic things needed to get a new business off the ground, such as registering the company and setting up a corporate bank account, he said.

"We see the ... corporate environment being more tolerant toward starting a new business," he said.

Some European startups may be better at going international

That said, Europe is unlikely to produce the next trillion dollar tech company, according to Saar. The startup ecosystem there needs develop further before it will be able to produce a company to rival America's tech giants.

But the region's already producing more and more billion dollar ones. And startups that come out of particular countries there may end up having a leg up on American rivals when competing for business overseas.

US startups — and even those in bigger European countries such as Germany and France — frequently wait years before branching out from their home markets, because those markets are so large and the challenges of going international can be so daunting, Saar said. But newly formed companies in small nations such as Israel and Portugal often set up shop in other markets in their earliest days because their home markets are too small to offer much potential.

"I think the early-stage startups coming out from smaller countries would be a bit more sophisticated and more open for internationalization versus the American startups," he said.

• Read more about startups and venture capital:
• Beyond Meat, whose plant burgers can fool even die-hard meat lovers, is up 700% since its IPO. Early investors say it will change how we eat, but there are signs Wall Street's binge could end badly.
• Here's the pitch deck that convinced investors to pour $6 million into a startup trying to take on Slack and Asana despite entering the market years late
• Lots of extremely successful founders in Silicon Valley cash out early. But WeWork's CEO pocketing $700 million is still far from normal.
• This startup just got $17 million to take on Peloton. Here's why its founder thinks there's a big opportunity in the home fitness market.

SEE ALSO: Here's the pitch deck a Montreal startup used to raise $2 million to get the word out about its AI-powered chatbot after funding it themselves for two years

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: I cleaned my entire apartment with 4 of Amazon's highest-rated cleaning robots, but I could've done a much better job myself

• Dandan Zhu has been a headhunter since 2011 and launched her own recruitment firm in 2018.
• When she graduated in 2009, it was the height of the recession. She went back home to waitress at her parents' restaurant in Boston, all while watching her friends start their careers.
• By recognizing the skills she had, she was able to land a gig as a junior recruiter at a headhunting firm in New York. By 25, she was earning $215,000 a year.
• She taught herself real-estate investment strategies, saved as much as she could, invested as much as she could, and was able to leave her job at 28. At 30, she's now a millionaire.
• Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.

As a finance graduate in the height of the 2009 recession, I was lost and confused at 22. Following my parents' advice, I chose finance as my major, just to realize I didn't enjoy any of the finance internships I held.

Since I had no job and my family could use the help, I went to waitress at my parents' restaurant in Boston, becoming increasingly frustrated about my future. As my friends went off to their 9-to-5s to start their glorious careers, I was stuck doing the job I'd held since high school.

As the year flew by, I knew I had to get serious about my life. After all, my immigrant parents didn't work so hard to provide for me and send me to college just for me to come back and waitress at their restaurant. More importantly, I was ready to sink my teeth into my future and create a successful life.

By 30, I was able to find a career I love and build wealth, and I now continue to help others as an entrepreneur in my profession. Here is how I went from a waitress at 22 to a millionaire by 30, and my best advice for others who want to do the same.

SEE ALSO: I'm a recruiter who's placed hundreds of senior professionals. Here are 5 things hiring managers know that job seekers don’t.

1. Realize your strengths and weaknesses.

While I lacked the skills to create a successful career in finance, I worked with what little skills I knew I had.

Through my entrepreneurial endeavors and hospitality jobs during high school and college, what I excelled in was communicating and influencing others, reacting on the fly, and working long days on tough jobs that were both physically and mentally challenging.

I saw a big appeal in sales roles. I knew I possessed many advantages compared to my peers because of the heavy objection handling, sales, and people-management experience I had interfacing with all personality types during my hospitality jobs.

Luckily, a headhunting firm saw potential in me and hired me to become a junior recruiter. I packed my bags, left my waitressing job, and arrived in New York City with a dream in my pocket to hit it big as a recruiter.

Don't double down on your weaknesses; find a career that will allow you to leverage your strengths and profit.

2. Work as hard as possible to be the best.

Since I was used to hustling to make a buck, I was truly honored, astounded, and immensely motivated by the moneymaking potential in recruitment. I vowed to become a top producer and conquer the billing leagues.

And since I was raised by tough immigrant parents who constantly pushed me and taught me to work hard, I thrived under the high-pressure sales environment of recruitment.

From day one, I worked with a vengeance, breaking records on phone times and KPIs (key performance indicators), working over 12 hours a day, seven days a week — whatever it took to learn the job as fast as possible. Despite making countless mistakes along the way, I became a standout hire, breaking billing records and getting recognized internally as a high-potential future leader. At age 25, I was breaking $215,000 in income a year.

When you commit to something that you know you could be good at, give it your all, blindly believe, and persevere to success. Anything less will have suboptimal results.

3. Maximize your income potential while decreasing your cost of living.

In order to achieve my dreams of becoming wealthy, I adopted smart financial habits. I implemented stringent cost controls from the day I landed in NYC — mostly because of the low base salary, my level of student debt, and just striving to survive while I was still learning the business and had no commissions coming in.

I rarely took taxis (once a quarter was a luxury), lived 45 minutes from work in an obscure neighborhood for cheaper rent, mostly cooked or ate discount foods, shopped only clearance on the rare occasions I would let myself buy something, and practiced countless other cost-saving measures. I used an Excel spreadsheet to track my spending and budget for everything.

Even when commissions started rolling in, the name of the game was keeping the status quo. Other than the occasional luxury goods and vacations I would go on (again, heavily discounted, and I still monitored how I spent my money), I refused to upgrade my lifestyle in any significant way. To this day, I still live in my neighborhood because it lets me sock away money at a faster rate because of very reasonable rental costs.

If you spend all your money, you're just shackling yourself to having to work harder and longer to pay yourself back. Prioritize your financial health and set yourself on the right path to adopt wealth-creating habits.

4. Invest as much of your net worth that you can into something you deeply understand.

By the time I was 25, I had already saved up over $100,000. I would consistently invest 75% of it or more in the stock market. While I wasn't a genius equities trader, I knew enough to be dangerous and make some decent returns — nothing crazy.

I finally decided to truly study real-estate investing. That became my obsession. After work, at work, on weekends, that became my second job: teaching myself real-estate investing strategies by reading books on tax law and real-estate investing, and listening to audiobooks on the subject.

After I bought my second property, I quit my job at 28. After five years of being a consistent top producer, I felt confident that I no longer needed to work for someone else.

For the last two years of my 20s, I bought and sold more properties, becoming a millionaire by 30. Now, I'm self-employed with a healthy investment portfolio and my own recruitment business, DG Recruit.

If you don't learn to invest and invest as much as humanly possible when you're young, you're missing out of a lot of opportunities to increase your net worth. Study and master debt instruments and the positive qualities of debt, and don't be afraid of leveraging debt.

Long story short

I achieved such fast net-worth growth in a relatively short period by combining and maximizing multiple strategies at the same time in a concentrated, focused manner: earning, saving, and investing as much as I could.

I continued to educate myself outside of work and school and executed my plan without being afraid of decisions, timing, and risks.

My most important advice is to take action while you still have the chance to take risks. Don't overthink things. Analysis paralysis kills so many great opportunities. Instead, be decisive and go for it. The worst that could happen is you'll learn something new along your journey.

Dandan Zhu is a headhunter, investor, and entrepreneur who coaches, trains, and recruits top talent in recruitment and sales positions. As an immigrant coming from humble beginnings, Dandan struggled through culture shock and difficult family dynamics until her early 20s, when she realized she wanted more from life. She went from being a waitress at 22 to a millionaire by 30 through her recruitment and investment career and now shares her methods through her businesses and advice on DG Recruit, Dandan Global, and her daily posts. Tune into her podcasts "DG Recruit" and "Daily Dandan" for more insight, guidance, and coaching on anything related to careers, success, and recruitment.

• Brad Katsuyama worked as an executive for the Royal Bank of Canada. Instead of retiring from the RBC, he decided to launch his own company, the Investors Exchange (IEX).
• As the cofounder and CEO of IEX, Katsuyama is determined to build a company he's proud of, but not one that defines who he is.
• He said he's learned to differentiate personal and professional success.
• Click here for more BI Prime stories.

For 12 years Brad Katsuyama had worked as an executive for the Royal Bank of Canada. Instead of retiring from RBC, he decided to launch his own company, the Investors Exchange (IEX).

Katsuyama founded IEX as a stock exchange that thwarts predatory high-frequency trading, and had the idea while still working at RBC. He had seven jobs during his time there, and hadn't ever considered himself either a born financier or a born entrepreneur, he said in an episode of Business Insider's podcast "This Is Success."

He may not have gone into finance out of a passion for the field, but he turned out to be great at his job, and only left it to take a major gamble on his own business because he felt morally driven to combat what he considered a rigged trading system. His career path, he said, has given him a certain peace of mind he thinks anyone could benefit from.

"Knowing the risks we took to start IEX, I think partly is grounded in I don't feel that working on Wall Street identifies who I am," Katsuyama said.

"So if I lost it all tomorrow, I think I could be totally happy with my life, from that point forward, and I think a lot of people over-identify with their jobs. I don't really feel that way," he said.

Read more: IEX CEO Brad Katsuyama talks about life after 'Flash Boys' and how he's taking on the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq

There's no doubt about Katsuyama's dedication to his company and its mission. But he's learned to separate the company he cares deeply about from his personal identity.

At the end of the day, he said, "It's a business. But it's not the only thing in my life. It's certainly not the most important thing in my life." In fact, if it turns out Katsuyama isn't the best leader for IEX one day, he'd happily step down, he said.

Katsuyama said that while some people judge their success by how much money they're making, "I could not tell you if you asked me, if you had a gun to my head right now and said, 'What's the value of your stake in IEX?' I would miss it. I would be wrong. I don't know. So that tells me it's not about money."

"I think people equate success to work. I actually don't, and I learned the lesson early that identifying yourself too much with one thing in a way sets you up to be dramatically disappointed at some point," he said.

You can subscribe to "This Is Success" in Apple Podcasts or Stitcher, and listen to the full episode below:

A version of this story was originally published on Dec. 12, 2018.

SEE ALSO: IEX CEO Brad Katsuyama shares the 'critical' piece of advice he gives other entrepreneurs about getting through rough patches

DON'T MISS: A 27-year-old entrepreneur who lost $35,000 in one night explains why losing money can lead him to good things

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Bernie Madoff was arrested 10 years ago — here's what his life is like in prison