PagerDuty (YC S10) now at $100M in ARR(pagerduty.com) |
PagerDuty (YC S10) now at $100M in ARR(pagerduty.com) |
">$100MM yearly" is, let's say, $8.5MM monthly.
">10,000 customers" is <15,000 (or they would have used that), so maybe 11,000 to 13,000.
That's around $650-$750 per customer per month.
"Hundreds of thousands of active users" means maybe 250,000-400,000.
That's 20-35 users per customer, when split between 11,000-13,000 customers.
That comes out to $21-$34 per user per customer per month, average (you can see pricing tiers here: https://www.pagerduty.com/pricing/).
(I don't know if they make money off contracts not available on their pricing page.)
Because of this, they are really at risk of being replaced in large companies that can fund a team to maintain a paging system as that ends up being cheaper than 5k licenses.
Surely this isn't some coincidence. How does one achieve this without some degree of sexism?
If they promise and deliver on a culture where women in leadership can thrive and attempt to recruit smart women, then more women will join. Success breeds success.
Companies that focus on seeking out qualified talent from underrepresented groups have a competitive advantage, by exploiting the inherent prejudice in their competitors to access an undervalued talent pool. This in turn attracts even overrepresented talent that is motivated to work for teams with these principles.
I've been on a team before where one member was adamant about throwing out resumes from white men for the sake of diversity. I know it happens.
So yes, the company probably did partake in sexism and discrimination to get there. Otherwise they are very lucky and a statistical outlier when it comes to qualified female applicants applying.
You have simply defined “overrepresentation” in a sexist manner (50% women).
Do you have data that suggests said pool is 50%, instead of replying to all my comments and calling me sexist?
Your concept of a “pool” is as sexist as thinking that a hospital with more than 7.6% women physicians in 1970 was a result of discrimination against men.
The advance of women in medicine is not an “over representation”. It is closing the gap on underrepresentation due to systemic sexism (with still more work to do). This is beginning to happening in CS and other high wage fields traditionally reserved as men’s work. Your argument merely seeks to bastardize and turn the very terminology of sexism against this effort.
[1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...
Yeah, not a sexist standard at all.
48% of newspaper publishers are women; 42% of pharmacists are women; 47% of real estate agents are women;
27% of "Computer systems design and related services" are women
Okay, so CS-related jobs clearly are far from the worse in terms of gender ratio. Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries. I'm not convinced that this industry is inherently more or less sexist than others, which is why I included some jobs where it's actually close to 50%.
Also, you can't just compare to the general population, because you simply aren't hiring from the general population, as you are hiring people with a specific skillset. That is why many low skilled jobs that aren't labor-intensive are close to 50%
Statistics are from: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm
edit: formatting and grammar
> Don't hear much about inherent sexism in other industries.
You should listen more.[1][2]
[1] https://sites.psu.edu/civic/2017/02/14/gender-discrimination...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-mo...
Then there were additional 3-4 professions with exactly 99% gender segregation. Mechanics (male), nurse secretary (female), but I don't remember the names of the other. All those professions existed where for every minority gender there where hundred or hundreds employed of the majority.
Is this proof of systemic sexism, and if so, what conclusion can we draw? Remember that in Sweden the number of employed women and men is only off by less than 1%, and only 12.5% of the population work in a profession where the majority gender is lesser than 150% to the minority. Of those 12.5%, men was that year slightly more likely to work in a gender equal profession.
I too have seen what you’ve described take place.
Protected Class: The groups protected from the employment discrimination by law. These groups include men and women on the basis of sex; any group which shares a common race, religion, color, or national origin; people over 40; and people with physical or mental handicaps. Every U.S. citizen is a member of some protected class, and is entitled to the benefits of EEO law. However, the EEO laws were passed to correct a history of unfavorable treatment of women and minority group members.
https://www.archives.gov/eeo/terminology.html
The idea that men are being discriminated against is a farce.
Mathematically the percentage probably falls on a bell curve and is heavily dependent on priors like industry and workplace culture. Given the large number of companies we should expect at least some outliers to occur naturally. Additionally almost every company should expect to be outliers in some kind of arbitrary metric.
However it's not conclusive whether sexism towards men or sexism towards women has made the ratios the way they are. Surely it's some factor, but how much?
Many professions that used to be nearly 100% male are now more than 50% women, while some that used to be nearly 100% has stayed well below 50% women. Why is that? Sexism doesn't explain it for me because that implies people in some professions are inherently more sexist than others and I'm not convinced of that