SO: If you have a nanny do you save 6 months of her salary for her in case you are unemployed?

[Anonymous]

I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

[Anonymous]

I'm a nanny. I think the issues that most affect this (and that nobody is really mentioning) are
1) How old is your child?
2) How easily can you find replacement care?

If your child is very young (under 18 months) then going from full-time nanny to mom or dad to part-time, cheap at-home daycare to a new nanny could be realy hard on your kid--yes, different kids have different personalities, and if your nanny only ever worked 40 hours per week, the. The bond there is different from nannies who work 60 hours per week, etc., but I would be thinking about that as I budgeted. E.g., I would at least have 2 months of nanny salary saved, plus 2 months worth of part time care costs so that if I were laid off but found work quickly we wouldn't need to put the kid through that. If I were out of work for 6 months, that's a lot more time to space out all of those adjustments.

The second consideration is how easily you could find replacement care. If both you and your spouse have daycares at work, then if either of you lost your job, the kids could go to the other spouse's daycare--if your kids are old enough that the transition wouldn't be a huge deal, then go for it! Save 6 months of daycare costs rather than nanny wages, and you are set. If you both work odd hours, have no real backup care, travel regularly, etc., then you may very well "need" a nanny and should save accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

You're a freakin idiot. Stability is important, but my child is not a Waterford crystal vase. Although we would all like to wrap our kids up in bubblewrap and protect them from change, the fact is, financial stability is also important. It would be completely irresponsible (and bad parenting) to sacrifice financial stability to keep full time, premium childcare when I didn't actually need it. Obviously if I knew for sure that when I lost my job I would find a new one within a short, defined period of time, I would budget to keep our nanny. But life just isn't so neat. And anyway, I actually think it's good for kids to have multiple caregivers, as long as they are all good caregivers. And furthermore, two weeks is plenty of time to find and vet a good nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

Outsourcing the most basic fundamental task of a parent, the primary caregiving of our babies and young children, is a priviledge of the wealthy. It's not an entitlement of upwardly mobile career oriented couples, who prefer to believe that child care isn't real work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

Outsourcing the most basic fundamental task of a parent, the primary caregiving of our babies and young children, is a priviledge of the wealthy. It's not an entitlement of upwardly mobile career oriented couples, who prefer to believe that child care isn't real work.

Ok, so according to your theory, it is acceptable for the wealthy to have nannies because they will never have to fire them? And the definition of "affordability" is something that you can continue paying forever and ever even if you get laid off? You're contorting yourself to fit your troglodyte agenda. It's kind of amusing. Ta ta.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

Outsourcing the most basic fundamental task of a parent, the primary caregiving of our babies and young children, is a priviledge of the wealthy. It's not an entitlement of upwardly mobile career oriented couples, who prefer to believe that child care isn't real work.

Ok, so according to your theory, it is acceptable for the wealthy to have nannies because they will never have to fire them? And the definition of "affordability" is something that you can continue paying forever and ever even if you get laid off? You're contorting yourself to fit your troglodyte agenda. It's kind of amusing. Ta ta.

Nannies of the rich are trained and experienced professional. They typically work with the same family for many years, thus ensuring the "continuity of care" that is so vital for every child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

Outsourcing the most basic fundamental task of a parent, the primary caregiving of our babies and young children, is a priviledge of the wealthy. It's not an entitlement of upwardly mobile career oriented couples, who prefer to believe that child care isn't real work.

Ok, so according to your theory, it is acceptable for the wealthy to have nannies because they will never have to fire them? And the definition of "affordability" is something that you can continue paying forever and ever even if you get laid off? You're contorting yourself to fit your troglodyte agenda. It's kind of amusing. Ta ta.

Nannies of the rich are trained and experienced professional. They typically work with the same family for many years, thus ensuring the "continuity of care" that is so vital for every child.

hilarious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I definitely would not plan for my emergency fund to cover 6 months of full time childcare. Nannys are pretty easy to find and hire quickly. I'd budget for some cheaper part-time care to use during the job search, and count on friends/relatives/spouse to cover some of that too. Once I got a job 2 weeks would be long enough to find a nanny.

Is stability for your child not a priority? How exactly do you explain to them losing their nanny, being passed around from daycare to and friends and family, not knowing what to expect from one day to the next, not to mention mommy isn't going to work and she's really stressed. Then you're going to give yourself 2 weeks to find someone you trust with your kid, and expect the child to just form a brand new attachment? Solid plan

A lot of people don't really care about attachment or continuity for their kids, or even quality. As long as there is someone watching their kids, meeting basis needs of food, toileting and safety, doing what they are told to do - they don't really care who that person is. If it changes all the time - who cares. If their child has to keep adapting to a stranger - who cares. It helps the parents feel more important and attached themselves as they want to be the primary attachment so it is better to keep breaking the child's attachment with other people, especially those that spend 50+ hours a week with their child as they perceive that as a threat.

This is such bullshit. What part of WE COULD NOT AFFORD IT do you not understand? Of course in an ideal world we would all have a million dollar emergency fund. But you seem to be suggesting that it is neglectful parenting not to go into debt in order to keep paying your nanny when you are unemployed. It's a frankly bizarre argument, especially since the parent would be doing most of the childcare in the interim. You're just out to bash working mothers in general, I think.

You aren't the only family who can't afford the luxury of a dual-career "working" couple.

What is this supposed to mean? That all moms should sah because they might lose their jobs if they worked and have to fire their nanny? Good job, that's pretty much the most stupid argument against working moms I've heard so far. Especially considering that our family would be much LESS financially stable if only one of us worked.

Outsourcing the most basic fundamental task of a parent, the primary caregiving of our babies and young children, is a priviledge of the wealthy. It's not an entitlement of upwardly mobile career oriented couples, who prefer to believe that child care isn't real work.

Ok, so according to your theory, it is acceptable for the wealthy to have nannies because they will never have to fire them? And the definition of "affordability" is something that you can continue paying forever and ever even if you get laid off? You're contorting yourself to fit your troglodyte agenda. It's kind of amusing. Ta ta.

Nannies of the rich are trained and experienced professional. They typically work with the same family for many years, thus ensuring the "continuity of care" that is so vital for every child.

hilarious

You're right. The care of your own children is a complete joke to some of you.
Beautiful.

[Anonymous]

LOL- the crazies from the nanny forum have found this thread....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL- the crazies from the nanny forum have found this thread....

The crazies who think babysitting your kids is a job?