How The Cruise Industry Is Skipping on Taxes

There are two things in life that are certain – death, and paying taxes. Whether you are a large corporation or a citizen living in a small town that you know and love, we all pay taxes each and every year. Yet, there is one industry that has question marks surrounding their financials and end of year books, and the United States government isn’t doing much about it.

This industry is the maritime – or cruise – industry. When it was uncovered that Carnival Corporation was avoiding the payment of taxes in the United States, it raised concerns. You see, Carnival Corporation is headquartered in Florida, yet the company is legally incorporated in Panama. By incorporating in Panama and registering its ships in this third world country, the company avoids paying taxes and wages in the USA. Yet, Carnival benefits from a plethora of resources from their headquartered state of Florida and other States and Cities that their cruise ship docks in. The company uses the resources of the USA Coast Guard, Customs, Border Protection, the FBI and more.

If this raises question marks above your head, too, you’re certainly not alone. Attorney Jim Walker of Cruise Law News has been seeking an answer to this question for quite some time, wondering whether companies like Carnival pays its fair share of taxes. Similarly, the New York Times took aim at Carnival back in 2011.

Surprisingly, next to nothing has come of it. Though this seeming act of tax evasion has struck a cord with such Attorneys and large news publications, as above, the government is turning a blind eye at this act. The argument is that companies working in the maritime or cruise industries are global in nature, meaning that they could potentially be paying taxes around the world, or so their CEO Micky Arison says. Yet, those who take cruises for leisure are primarily from the USA, and since the company is headquartered in the State of Florida, this argument has little to no support.

It is clear that the United State Government needs to pay attention to what is taking place in the maritime and cruise industries. With the primary mode of business being in the USA, it is unfair for tax payers and other businesses within the United States being tax paying, law abiding citizens or corporations, while companies like Carnival reaps the benefits of questionable business behavior year over year.


How Long Will the Visa & MasterCard Domination Last?


Visa and Mastercard have dominated the payments industry for decades. In a 2015 Nilson Report, Visa and Mastercard represented more than 82% of the global market share for transactions worldwide. Visa and Mastercard charge a transaction fee on each transaction taking place through their cards. They also partner financial institutions and charge sizeable foreign exchange fees on global transactions.

The first credit card was issued by New York’s Franklin National Bank for loan customers way back in 1951. It was issued as a symbol of trust for credit worthy customers. Today the card industry has become more cut throat. Trust became a secondary issue compared with profit. After all, credit card loans are revolving industries with high profit margins for consumer banking. Financial institutions and payment systems have worked together and charged the consumers interests rates and a host of other fees.

For decades, payment system firms enjoyed an undisturbed market free from disruptive forces. Unlike the short messaging system (sms) industry which was disrupted by data messaging applciations, payment system firms have endured the onslught of payment applications such as Square and Paypal. The rise of mobile payments startups may well challenge the traditional card payment system. Indeed some startups offer card-less convenience as well as attractive data analytics for merchants.

And yet, Visa and Mastercard continue to grow their topline revenue. Given both new and traditional forms of payment are growing, perhaps there may be a complementary relationship between the two. Unlike the Uber versus black cabs in London, mobile payment applications are not necessarily disruptive to the payment ecosystem.

Online applications such as Paypal allow users to add credit cards as well as top up an e-wallet directly from banks. Many users continue to use credit cards as a complementary service to the new wave of payment applications online. After all, a standalone system is another form of security for suers. Users can always cancel the card once they feel that Paypal or another payment application has initiated an unauthorised transaction. For many of these users, convenience is the winning factor. With mobile applications, payment becomes a quicker and more enjoyable process. The 30 second wait for the POS terminal to dail up to the network is long compared to the Visa paywave transaction which can take mere seconds. When users add these cards into a new application such as Apple Pay or Liquid Pay, the transaction can be done in a matter of seconds.

For many mobile applications, payment is the first step. Alipay started with payments then moved into investment products, microfinance and trade. Payments bring in the critical mass. Today, users do far more including trading stocks. If they could top up their stock brokerage account, pay interst and commissions, select robo-advisors all within the same application, might more defect to such applications? Mobile payment applications might just be the start of a smarter financial ecosystem.

The victims of the disruption may emerge only in later phases of this growing market in mobile payments.

Brexit: No, Turkey Is Not Coming

UK Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage looks on during a debate on the outcome of the 7 March EU-Turkey Summit at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France, on March 9, 2016. / AFP / FREDERICK FLORIN (Photo credit should read FREDERICK FLORIN/AFP/Getty Images)

Britons will soon be heading to polls to make a crucial decision for the future of their country – as well as the future of the European Union. The economy argument has been among the loudest ones heard and is a legitimate one to make, but polls show that it is in fact immigration, rather than economy that is the bigger concern for referendum goers. This has certainly been facilitated by the refugee crisis-stricken Europe opening borders and then trying to deal with the consequences with what seems little foresight.

In a speech in European Parliament late last year, Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP and supporter of Brexit, made an analogy of Germany accepting refugees as opening a champagne cork and later trying to put it back in. He believes that the Turkey-EU deal is an exploitation of the union’s weaknesses and that Turkey is conducting blackmail to gain visa-free travel rights without any guarantee that they would help the refugee flow.

Months later, the agreement was put in place and the number of migrants has decreased sharply. This proves that to prompt legal migration, a deal had to be made. However, the terms were controversial. Turkey has been aiming at visa-free travel and EU accession talks for a long time and mixing it up with humanitarian problem solving – only making blackmail for both sides more likely, making the deal less fair.

It’s unlikely that Turkey will get the visa liberalisation deal, as Turkish president is against softening anti-terrorism laws that EU finds undemocratic. The new Turkish government will not seek many compromises, since EU hasn’t delivered on their promises either — Turkey hasn’t received the 3 billion funds for refugee relocation. Blind to this reality, Britain’s Vote Leave campaign has recently taken on the menacing narrative that Turkey is set to join EU very soon.

“To me, without any other debate, if it was one single reason why Britain should in this referendum vote to leave the European Union, it is the folly of political integration with Turkey. It is not only stupid, it is damn dangerous.” -Nigel Farage

UK citizens are extremely fearful about a massive influx of Turkish immigrants into EU and they shouldn’t be concerned because it probably won’t happen. The Vote Leave campaign claims that Turkey is set to join EU in a few years and open doors to 76 million Turks who will pose a great threat to the security and economy of UK (in an assumption that these are mainly poor people or criminals wanting to migrate). When in fact, a poll conducted by the campaign itself shows that only 16% would consider relocating to the UK. In a study carried out by the British government, little evidence was found of a statistically significant impact on EU migration on native employment.

Even if the refugee deal holds, the migration argument cannot be played because the UK is not part of Schengen zone, which will be affected by visa-free travel. Besides, it will give no residence rights. Turkey’s accession to EU is so highly unlikely that it shouldn’t even be part of the Brexit conversation. The basic admission criteria or the Copenhagen criteria, states that candidate countries have to be market economies, able to fulfil membership obligations and stable democracies.

“It is not remotely on the cards that Turkey is going to join the EU any time soon. They applied in 1987. At the current rate of progress, they will probably get round to joining in about the year 3000.” -David Cameron

Even if Turkey’s EU vote was on the agenda, the decision on the accession of a new member state has to be unanimous. The UK, as an EU member can veto it. Plus, they might not even be the only country veto-ing it. Greece has already done it before because of the disputes over Northern Cyprus and the control of Aegean Sea. Additionally – France and Germany hasn’t shown much support either.

Turkey shouldn’t be looked down upon, as it is the second largest member of NATO and plays an important geopolitical role mainly because of its size and location. Though, ts population size would give it too much political leverage that would significantly turn the power tides in European politics. It seems like Turkey would only put a strain on the relations between communities and endanger future cooperation between countries.

Australia is the New Asia

As the world continues to shrink with globalization, international real estate investment is becoming more popular than ever before. Improved communications, reduced transactional friction and investment-friendly policies are drawing Asian investment to the U.S. market in record numbers. However, there’s also been intense activity in Australian real estate, particularly from Asian investors.

MI.Australia082015 conducted a survey at the end of 2015, which showed that Australia was the first choice of investment location for international property buyers based in Singapore and Malaysia, second for Indonesian investors.

Experts suggest that these investors see Australian properties as a better investment than real estate in other countries. It is often relatively cheap, given currency fluctuations. The Australian dollar has fallen by about 30% in the last few years.

Asian investors are “looking at larger towns like Newcastle and Wollongong. Larger established towns (with) universities in place and also potential for growth from a commercial side of things.”

There’s been a high level of investment from China as well. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that Chinese investment in Australian real estate has doubled in the past year. This segment accounts for 16% of the total sales of Australian real estate. In fact, China invests 3 times the amount in Australian real estate that the U.S. does, and 6 times what Singapore invests. Prior to 2013, the U.S. was the leading investor in Australian property. China is extremely important to the Australian economy. It is Australia’s largest export destination and also contributes to that country’s growing international tourism.

This is partly fueled by uncertainty surrounding the Chinese economy. Favorable trade agreements and a growing Chinese middle class also encourage the flow of investment to the Australian market. High net worth individuals in China find the Australian market attractive, both in terms of price and economic stability.

Actions by the Australian government at the end of 2015 also put a bit of a damper on foreign real estate investors. The government cracked down on property owners who had not gotten the required approval for their investments. It also instated a new fee for international investors registering their Australian properties. Rules governing newly built properties are less restrictive, and this has led to record participation from foreign investors in development projects.

The international impact is being felt mostly in the residential market, in part due to the small size of the commercial market, which is dominated by domestic investors. However, foreign money is stillgoing into commercial properties as well as development plans. Overall, in the past year, 50% of Australian real estate investment capital came from foreign investors, according toAustralia’s Foreign Investment Review Board.

I can see this high level of foreign interest will have an impact on all sectors of the Australian market. Demand is expected to grow in hotels and resorts and even in the rural land market. It’s likely that this trend in high demand will continue.

Is This Ex-Yelp Employee Right?

download (3)A Yelp employee who wrote a bold blog post about her low pay was fired, and has even got her ex-CEO responding on Twitter.  Talia Jane, a customer-service rep who worked for the company’s food delivery arm Eat24, wrote an open letter to Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman on Friday explaining how she could not afford to pay groceries, had stopped using her heater, spent 80 percent of her income on paying rent in San Francisco and was “balancing all sorts of debt and trying to pave a life for myself that doesn’t involve crying in the bathtub every week.” Jane further comments about going to sleep with stomach pains and only eating rice while not at the office.

Even as she posted her letter online, Jane seemed to understand that the repercussions of her post could involve her job. Jane tweeted, “might lose my job for this so it’d be cool if u shared so i could go out in a blaze of…..people knowing why i got fired?” Her premonitions proved correct, as shortly after, she was let go by Yelp for what she terms as a violation of their internal “terms of conduct.”

The incident drew a series of responses from Stoppelman, who addressed her concerns by acknowledging the high cost of living in San Francisco, while rebuffing any allegations he was the one who fired Jane.

A Yelp spokesperson told Fortune that the company would not comment on personnel matters. However, the spokesperson did echo both Jane and Stoppelman’s comments on the standard of living in San Francisco. “We agree with her remarks about the high costs of living in San Francisco, which is why we announced in December that we are expanding our Eat24 customer support team into our Phoenix office where will pay the same wage.”

Even amongst other millennial like Jane, there has been a mixed response of support and disgust in her attitude. One writer, Stefanie Williams commented, “Work ethic is not something that develops from entitlement. Quite the opposite, in fact. It develops when you realize there are a million other people who could perform your job and you are lucky to have one. It comes from sucking up the bad aspects and focusing on the good and above all it comes from humility. It comes from modesty. And those are two things, based on your article, that you clearly do not possess.”

There is no doubt that working in Silicon Valley can be challenging, but Williams does make a point about work ethic. What do you think – do you sympathize with Jane?

ChemChina – Overseas & Overpaying

The government-owned agrochemical firm, China National Chemical Corporation (ChemChina) announced an all-cash proposal to buy Swiss rival, Syngenta for $43 billion. This deal is expected to improve China’s food production. Now, the world is asking China, “How?” and “Why?”

download (2)China’s GDP hit a 25-year low in 2015 so why does the government still want to support such a large acquisition while the economy is declining?

The Chinese government has an objective to diversify its overseas industrial sector. Regardless, these deals do not make financial sense. All Chinese companies that are owned by the Chinese government have a mandate to go overseas for these purchases.

This can be very critical because companies like ChemChina are incredibly over leveraged. In the standard commercial market, they will not be able to receive a loan because they are in debt – over 10 times than the gross they will receive. Sometimes, up to three or four times is acceptable in the commercial industry, but not 10.

Why are the overseas companies willing to deal with these large Chinese firms even if they’re over leveraged?

According to Advisor Abbate, “They are essentially dealing with the Chinese government. When they are looking at a deal, they’re looking at guarantees by the Chinese government to be able to pay for whatever it will take.”

“My concern is if these Chinese companies have generated so much debt, it means they’re not well-managed. If they’re not well-managed in China, what makes them think they’ll be able to go overseas and buy a large company like Syngenta or the Italian tire maker, Pirelli and be able to manage them well?” questioned AA. There are many international stories about when inter-cultural acquisitions don’t turn out well. More so, the key problem towards China is the amount of debt that they have.

How will the acquisitions turn out? Is there a successful example? 

In 2013, one of the major national oil companies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation, or CNOOC Group had problems and paid a record $15 billion for Canadian company, Nexon with 60% premium to Nexon share price, only to suffer from the slump in global oil prices. Based on Advisor Abbate’s analysis, “The only successful one was the acquisition when Lenovo purchased IBM.” Lenovo did a good job by not only keeping the Western employees, but even hiring more Westerners. The CEO, Yang Yuanqing, took a very slow step in merging the culture of East and West allowing the two companies to understand each other slowly.

“I believe that in the very near future, the Chinese companies, which are represented as major global investors are going to be highly damaged by the amount of debt they are carrying and the inability to properly manage.”

BETTER POLICY NEEDED. Right now, the only reason these companies can go around the world, buying these large enterprises is because the Chinese government is simply presenting a “blank check”. Meanwhile, the Western companies are being greedy, but not responsible sellers. The EU is planning to step in to oppose some of these acquisitions.

How will China or the Chinese government benefit from these acquisitions?

How can it be possible for companies that have nearly 80 times debt over their gross income be able to do this? Unsurprisingly, the Chinese executives have certain connections within the government to obtain financing. When doing business, they’re actually doing “PR” work. “I don’t believe that it will be a practice for China in the long run,” said AA.

Acquisition for China is not a philosophy of commercial, but EXPANSION. It is more important to China to become a global player quickly, rather than developing within their own country. 

With the slowing economy in China and with factories operating at 70% of their production capacity, it make sense that they would expand outside of their market so that they can leverage the 30% of inefficiency.Ren Jianxin, Chairman of China National Chemical Corp shakes hands with Swiss agrochemicals maker Syngenta's President Michel Demare (R) after the company's annual news conference in Basel, Switzerland February 3, 2016. China made its boldest overseas takeover move yet when state-owned ChemChina agreed a $43 billion bid for Swiss seeds and pesticides group Syngenta on Wednesday. The largest ever foreign purchase by a Chinese firm, announced by both companies, will accelerate a shake-up in global agrochemicals and marks a setback for U.S. firm Monsanto, which failed to buy Syngenta last year.  REUTERS/Arnd Wiegmann

Last year, ChemChina acquired Italian tire maker Pirelli in a $7.9 billion transaction. How will this influence Italy? 

Italy is a country of “crisis.” There has always been a shortage of liquidity because of corruption in the Italian government and a lot of money is wasted on “ghost projects.” The Italian government welcomes any type of foreign investment and why wouldn’t they? Pirelli made a good deal – the owners of the majority stock holders remain in charge, the investors (which were several banks) continued to maintain the stock into the company. China is a tremendous market, which continues to grow – it’s an amazing deal for the Italians.

China-based firm’s purchases of U.S. companies include: Haier Group’s $5.4 billion purchase of General Electric’s appliance business and Dalian Wanda Group’s $3.5 billion deal for Legendary Entertainment. Additionally, Astoria Waldorf has been acquired by China’s Anbang Insurance. How will these affect the United States? The world?

As the factory of the world, China’s actions are concerning many people. They may not necessarily have direct impact on their investments, but Western companies are going to react as a result of these acquisitions.

What a slowing economy really means to the West is – How many goods they are going to be able to sell China? China is already the type of economy where the citizens save quite a bit of their income. What will happen then?



Developed & Emerging Markets – Where Do They Stand?

Ever since the term, BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) was created in 2002 by Goldman Sachs, the story of global growth has been emerging markets. Russia was driven by oil and Brazil by commodities, China and India were driven by demographic dividends in their immense populations. However, things have changed in the past three years.


In 2008, the Lehman crisis put the developed markets in a precarious condition. Debt soared, liquidity tightened, growth collapsed and the global GDP trend shifted out of the developed markets and into the emerging markets. As the share of emerging markets started rising, the share of developed markets started falling. In 2009, emerging markets accounted for 35% of global GDP, while developed markets accounts for 42%. In 2013, emerging markets accounted for 48% and developed markets accounted for 32%.

While the U.S. grappled with low inflation and the EU was occupied with the problem in Greece, things took a sharp shift in favor of developed markets. There was clearly a lot of pressure on emerging markets. As liquidity dried up in U.S. markets, commodity producers suffered. The oil and commodity slowdown just made it all worse. In 2015, the share of emerging markets in the global GDP was down to 34%, but the share of developed markets finally increased to 43%.

I think that this trend is going to become more pronounced in favor of developed markets in 2016. India, China and Mexico will still be the fastest growing economies. However, other emerging markets are going to pay a price for the fall in China’s growth. The US, Canada, UK, Japan and Germany will most likely grow by 2%.

As the US creates record jobs, the EU gets growth back, Russia and Brazil will probably suffer from the weak commodity prices and bad policy decisions. That means that between the slowing of China and negative growth from Brazil and Russia, the emerging markets are going to have a rough year. 2016 may be the year that developed markets get back on track.

What do you predict will happen?

The Value of Education

There is an on-going debate over whether college is worth the investment. Does it really equal the size of a certain paycheck? The real issue is that a college degree is one of the greatest, if not the greatest determining factor in social mobility.

"Education" Button on Modern Computer Keyboard.

Education has accelerated in the 20th century and social mobility has climbed along with it. College education has driven economic success and social changes in the 1960’s and 70’s as well as producing technological marvels at an astounding pace.

Today, research universities have changed the type of people that they are producing for the workforce. Now, we are creating entirely new industries with these new ideas and technologies. Graduates enter the economy with a different type of knowledge to drive scientific discovery, technological invention and understand the fields that will guide us forward. With these cutting-edge ideas, products and processes, creativity and discovery are normal in our marketplace. This is not only boosting graduate’s personal success, but also the competitiveness to succeed at innovation.

If you take a broader look at the issue with your economics cap on, the post-industrial economy grew from a large group of college-educated thinkers and dreamers. The $18 trillion economy in the United States is not a result of improvements on the worlds of the past. This is the complete result of highly creative technology developments that alter who we are as species. We utilize biotechnology, nanotechnology and communications technology to produce unprecedented economic and social change.

Educational attainment drives class structure, medical outcomes, social welfare outcomes, children’s success and democratic participation. The education level is really even a predictor of life span. The benefits of higher education are incredibly larger for the economic win rather than the individual. Educational attainment has drastically changed how the world works, lives, mobilizes, communicates and survives.

The executive, pilot and surgeon have tools that they rely on and staff that they work with – all products of higher education. Not to mention that they rely on college graduates to manage their retirement funds, serve as pediatricians to their kids, inspect the food they eat and clean the water that they drink.

What do you think about college education? How necessary is it? What changes need to be made? There are countless arguments that can be stemmed from this topic so please tell me, which arguments matter most to you and your future?

The U.K. Devolution & The U.S.

It has been a disappointing primary season for the United States. Candidates in both campaigns have not discussed the ways that the federal government will empower cities – the engines of economic growth and social progress.

Without tackling this difficult challenge, the cities will have to face things on their own – including taking on even more responsibilities if the longer-term budgetary trends continue. Growth in mandatory spending like Medicare and Social Security has crowded out federal contributions to housing, infrastructure, development in infrastructure and more. This will become even more dramatic ad the elderly population continues to grow.

BIRMINGHAM, ENGLAND - OCTOBER 04:  Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne speaks to delegates at the Conservative Party Conference on October 4, 2010 in Birmingham, England. On the second day of the conference the Chancellor announced cuts to welfare payments.  (Photo by Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images)

The stunning contrast is in the United Kingdom, where there is a conversation about the devolution of central government power. In the past few years, this devolution has gone from a goal to a part of the national agenda. George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer has been the leader of these “city deals” which creates opportunities for metro areas in Britain to negotiate for greater powers and discretion to strike detailed devolution agreements. In Britain’s election season, the Conservative and Labour parties unveiled competing proposals for how to decentralize power.

Just a few weeks ago, while delivering a speech to the Conservative Party conference Osborne introduced a few new approaches to advance the devolution agenda that are quite bold.

  • The establishment of an independent infrastructure commission

“If we’re going to build, then we have to shake Britain out of its inertia on the projects that matter most. There’s an idea, put forward by many people, including some Labour politicians, and its time has come. An independent National Infrastructure Commission. A commission, set up in law, free from party arguments, which works out calmly and dispassionately what the country needs to build for its future and holds any government’s feet to the fire if it fails to deliver.”

  • Establishing a power balance that reflects the nation’s strengths

“In the end it all comes down to where the power lies. To who makes the decisions … It’s time to face facts. The way this country is run is broken. People feel remote from decisions that affect them. Initiative is suffocated. Our cities held back. There’s no incentive to promote local enterprise.”

  • Allowing local areas to collect their business tax receipts

Today I am embarking on the biggest transfer of power to our local government in living memory. We’re going to allow local government to keep the rates they collect from business. That’s right, all £26 billion of business rates will be kept by councils instead of being sent up to Whitehall. Right now, we collect much more in business rates than we give back in the main grant. So we will phase out this local government grant altogether.”

  • Termination the uniform business tax rate in favor of allowing local areas to determine their own rates

Yes, further savings to be made in local government, but radical reform too. So an end to the uniform business rate. Money raised locally, spent locally. Every council able to cut business taxes. Every mayor able to build for their city’s future. A new way to govern our country. Power to the people. Let the devolution revolution begin.”

In some ways, the momentum of devolution in Britain would only happen in a matter of time after being one of the most centralized countries of the OECD nations and having an outrageously outdated balance of power.

So where is it in the United States? It is true that power is already much more decentralized in America, but there has been so little debate over how to make this devolution of power, making it a testament to the shallowness of the current political debates.

How to Hire the Best Talent Right Now

Talent is the lifeblood of your company, so recruiting is one of the top jobs for any executive or entrepreneur. There are three macroeconomic factors that are converging to make hiring more difficult for companies – the stronger economy, the large increase in demand for technically skilled workers and the booming freelance economy. Let me explain my points.


Growing Economy

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that the unemployment rate dropped to 5.1 percent in September, which is the lowest level since April of 2008. The low unemployment rate and healthier economy puts pressure on salaries. Median household incomes have consequently increased by 5.2 percent each year. However, low unemployment means that talented employees have more options than ever. If you’re like most companies, you have seen an executive respond with a counteroffer to avoid having a key employee “poached.” This has happened more and more frequently over the past few years.

Explosion of Tech

As our economy becomes more and more driven by technology, the skills needed to manage this new world are more valuable than ever. Software plays a very important role in fields that are not traditionally considered tech such as food, retail, real estate and transportation. That means that hiring tech-savvy workers is more of a challenge. Talent agencies for programmers now exist to hire out the best of the best on a model similar to the agency model for Hollywood stars.


A recent study by Edelman Berland and Upwork found some surprising statistics about freelance workers. The amount of U.S. workers who do some sort of freelancing has grown by 700,000 just in the past year and constitutes for 34 percent of the workforce. There are almost 54 million Americans that freelance and this trend has no signs of going away. For some people, this is just an evening job like driving a car on the weekends or putting together a mix of part-time traditional work. A shocking finding is that over 40 percent of U.S. freelancers don’t have a boss at all – they are entirely self-employed and freelancing is their primary form of income.

Freelancing appears to be more of a choice than a necessity. They enjoy the greater flexibility and many of them are actually making more money than they would working for an employer – 78 percent said that it took a year or less to exceed their previous income.

In a tight labor market, the smart professionals are realizing their options go beyond traditional employment. Smart companies will have to do the same and follow the talent as it embraces the freelance economy.