Išvyta iš darbo valytoja negali valyti konkurentų grindų

Taip, Lietuvoje. Ne, ne anekdotas. Mes turime pernely daug prezidenčių, seimo pirmininkių ir kitokių biurokratinių būtybių, kuriančių pernelyg daug draudimų. Lietuvos verslai išmoko tais draudimais naudotis, kad pasilengvinti gyvenimą. Tai yra nesąmonė, vedanti prie stagnacijos. Ko reikia, kad Lietuvoje sužydėtų mokslo slėniai? Reikia teisingų įstatymų, kurie yra Silicio slėnyje. Štai kai kurie iš jų:

1. Panaikinti visus draudimus dirbti konkurentų bendrovėse (visiems, ne tik valytojoms).

2. Atleisti iš darbo, kada darbdavys nori.

3. Leisti pensijiniams fondams ir kitiems stambiems investuotojams rizikuoti, paremiant venčiūrinį kapitalą.

4. Žymiai sumažinti mokesčius tiems, kurie uždirba, daugiau rizikuodami investicijomis į naujoves (JAV nuo 49 proc. mokesčio iki 20 proc. mokesčio)

5. Pilnai apsaugoti interneto platformas nuo atsakomybės už vartotojų skelbiamą informaciją tose platformose [1].

Nuorodose žemiau angliškai gerai paaiškinta kiekvienos tokios Silicio slėnio įstatymų ypatybės reikšmė (originalas čia).

1. "Non-compete clauses – California is the only jurisdiction in the world that flatly refuses to enforce non-compete clauses, a policy codified in Section 16600 of the Business and Professions Code. Employers can’t legally stop employees from joining competing firms, even briefly. The law, a historical accident dating back to 1872, keeps a steady flow of engineering and entrepreneurial talent circulating around the Valley. Start-ups can hire the stars they need; established companies are challenged to up the ante in creating rewarding working environments. No unions required.

Employment at will – On the other side of the coin, employment in California is considered by default to be “at-will.” Hiring and firing is a relatively easy process for both sides (with notable exceptions for discrimination based on age, race, and gender). As new ventures scale up, they can add staff quickly and efficiently. If, as in most cases, the startup fails or mutates into something else, scaling down is just as easy. Job-changing is frequent, with cross-pollination of ideas and people often mediated by the VCs.

The Prudent Man Rule – In 1978, the U.S. Department of Labor eased a major restriction on institutional investors known as “the Prudent Man Rule,” which kept pension funds and other trusts from participating in high-risk activities. The result was an influx of capital from institutions such as CalPERS, the retirement fund for California state employees, which utterly transformed venture investing and created Silicon Valley’s behemoth VC engine. VCs provide the funds that fuel every significant innovation in the region and beyond. And quickly. Private investors, unlike government funders, operate at lightning speed.


Differential capital gains rates – The tax rate for capital gains versus ordinary income is often cited as the most important influence on the flow of venture capital. Changes to the federal tax code between 1978 and 1981 dramatically lowered taxes on such gains from 49% (ouch!) to 20%. The difference in rate helped to offset the higher risk of such investments, ushering in an era of exuberant funding for new technologies that in 2014 alone topped $48 billion, according to the National Venture Capital Association. Relaxing the prudent man rule allowed institutional investors to participate; lower tax rates made it compelling for them to do so.

Another piece of Clinton-era wisdom is a U.S. law known as Section 230. Passed as part of the Communications Act of 1996, Section 230 insulates Internet companies, website hosts, and ISPs from legally liability stemming from content posted by users. It’s hard to imagine the social media revolution—think Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Reddit—taking place without that background rule. Which is why none of those companies came from Europe, which has no such protections."