How Domestic Workers Enable Well Off Women to Prosper

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing. This is often a topic I think about when "lean in" conversations happen all around me but I don't have the data to prove my hunch. Will be reading this soon!

I can't think of anything more cyncically regressive than trying to claim women should not lean in because they should do all the domestic labor themselves. That's some pure bullsh*t.

It's not actually. It's bulls$&# that well off white women (and men) think it's their right to get ahead while those they employ to do their dirty work stay behind. That's worse than regression, that's aggression.

There is this thing called a labor market.

I too agree that domestic workers have it tough. Our friend, a nanny, has enormous difficulty dealing with the BS paperwork required to get healthcare.

But the problem is not the UMC employers. If the well off people didn’t pay nannies, the nannies wouldn’t have jobs.
The problem is the SUPER well off people who pay politicians to make working people’s lives worse. Conservative billionaires try to take Medicaid away, try to lower the minimum wage, try to make it hard for working people to move up in society. Don’t blame the upper middle class family scrimping to afford a nanny. Blame people like Paul Ryan who took Koch money to try to take away your health care and put a tax cut for billionaires on a credit card while they say we can’t afford better programs for nannies.

This, thank you. Very well put. Why do we individualize societal problems? Money in politics is the root of SO many of our issues.

[Anonymous]

Isn't Zuck getting rich off his six figure wage slaves?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harnessing?

We pay a nanny a good wage.
It is a fair transaction. We make reasonable money. We wish to spend more time at our demanding jobs. Therefore we pay someone to help us do work that is not job work.

I don’t get it.
When someone goes to a restaurant are they “harnessing” the cooks and servers?
When we take a bus are we “harnessing” the driver?

There are good conversations to be had about fair wages and benefits and employee relations for parents who are not used to employee management.

But paying someone a fair wage to do work is how our world works.

Are you aware that most parents believe they pay the sitter a "good" wage? They'd never want to admit they pay something that's next to impossible to live on in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not seeing the part that is wrong with this. Those jobs - especially nannying - pay much better and off better benefits than most other jobs the candidates could get with similar skills.

This is not true, in general. Domestic workers are often extremely exploited. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. This is partially because it costs a lot to have a well-paid, on-the-books nanny after taxes.

-- Someone who has a well-paid, on-the-books nanny...but who also has a very high HHI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please, how come lowly paid male workers don't get the same attention? YOu don't think there are deep-sea fisherman who died so that we could all have access to fish? Or construction workers who enable the building of skyscrapers in NYC? These occupations are only occupied by a single gender and are low-wage earning too.

Actually, they're not particularly low-paying relative to the skills and education required.

[Anonymous]

Interesting article. Thought of the gig economy. After seeing a commercial recently for a well known grocery valet service and another for a laundry valet service, I thought about usefulness vs. equity.

The commercials are here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiZDqZ2TQsw

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-RPtzaVV98oHTTqSlR1UFA

I've used both services. Now that I have fallen on leaner times, I use app services less on the consumer side and occasionally gig on both services to balance the budget.

Gig economy on both sides I've found is highly female, and plays on the idea that there are more preferred activities that someone of means could be doing while leveraging another person of less means to do the dirty work.

The inequity comes when the people who do the dirty work are compensated at rates that abuse the exchange, which unfortunately happens with females that work at all levels.

Maybe its in our hands, as women, to ensure that we provide a fair exchange at least amongst each other.

[Anonymous]

I was offended reading this article, but then I realized it doesn't really apply to me because the author is focusing on people who don't pay their domestic workers appropriately. We pay our nanny well over minimum wage and always abide by overtime rules, and she has benefits like paid vacations and holidays. We respect her immensely and treat her like the professional that she is, and she's happy with her job. There is never any angst over whether she is part of our family or whether she should be in photos or not. This whole article is just bizarre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not seeing the part that is wrong with this. Those jobs - especially nannying - pay much better and off better benefits than most other jobs the candidates could get with similar skills.

This. We did a nanny share in large part to be able to pay a good wage well away from the poverty line. Our nanny had a late model car and owned a modest home in MoCo.

Was she single? I doubt it. She had someone to help support her. No one can afford to support themselves in this area on nanny wages + plus buy a late model car. How much did you pay her?

She was married, and she earned around $52,000/year (on the books) with paid sick days and vacations. She had health insurance for herself & kids from another source, but we would have helped pay for health insurance if she needed it. That wage (by herself, not including her spouse) put her right at the mean of the 3rd quintile of incomes nationwide (lower in MoCo because MoCo skews so rich from Bethesda). I'm not sure that without even a high school degree she could have earned similar in any other profession generally open to women.

[Anonymous]

I don't really understand the point of the article; it's nothing but UMC navel-gazing to me. Women work. That's a fact of life. If you work, someone has to look after your baby - nanny, daycare, whatever. How do you go from that to concluding that you're getting ahead "on the backs" of women who look after you child? I don't get it. I mean I go to work and someone is getting better off through MY labor (for which I am fairly compensated) so what? I mean are we supposed to do everything ourselves? Am I getting ahead on the back of the metro car operator? My taxi driver? Whoever cooks my lunch? Whoever makes my clothes? Oh stop.

Remember that women who choose domestic work are free agents. They survey the economic landscape and conclude, I have to believe correctly, that nanny care offers the best wages for their skills. Do you think there are other jobs out there that pay more? Go get them. I support you.

Our nanny makes an excellent living with all expenses paid (she lives in). She concluded, correctly, that there is no other job that would pay her as much as this. So how am I supposed to feel guilty? She makes it possible for me to go to work, yes. And I make it possible for her to have a very nice income.

[Anonymous]

“Domestic workers are often extremely exploited. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. This is partially because it costs a lot to have a well-paid, on-the-books nanny after taxes. ”

I am sure some are exploited but given the prevailing market norms around here at least in this area it seems like nannies are paid well above minimum wage, have paid PTO, typically guaranteed hours if the job is FT, and of course minimum supervision / nit picking during their work day as they are home alone with the child. How many other jobs offer those types of benefits for a similar skill level?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:um ... it's the husband too, right?

Yes. This is such a dated argument, that domestic workers watch the women's children. Men also need childcare as they also have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for sharing. This is often a topic I think about when "lean in" conversations happen all around me but I don't have the data to prove my hunch. Will be reading this soon!

I can't think of anything more cyncically regressive than trying to claim women should not lean in because they should do all the domestic labor themselves. That's some pure bullsh*t.

It's not actually. It's bulls$&# that well off white women (and men) think it's their right to get ahead while those they employ to do their dirty work stay behind. That's worse than regression, that's aggression.

There is this thing called a labor market.

I too agree that domestic workers have it tough. Our friend, a nanny, has enormous difficulty dealing with the BS paperwork required to get healthcare.

But the problem is not the UMC employers. If the well off people didn’t pay nannies, the nannies wouldn’t have jobs.
The problem is the SUPER well off people who pay politicians to make working people’s lives worse. Conservative billionaires try to take Medicaid away, try to lower the minimum wage, try to make it hard for working people to move up in society. Don’t blame the upper middle class family scrimping to afford a nanny. Blame people like Paul Ryan who took Koch money to try to take away your health care and put a tax cut for billionaires on a credit card while they say we can’t afford better programs for nannies.

PREACH!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not seeing the part that is wrong with this. Those jobs - especially nannying - pay much better and off better benefits than most other jobs the candidates could get with similar skills.

This is not true, in general. Domestic workers are often extremely exploited. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. This is partially because it costs a lot to have a well-paid, on-the-books nanny after taxes.

-- Someone who has a well-paid, on-the-books nanny...but who also has a very high HHI

Yep the same women talking about equal pay and pay gap are some of the cheapest people I know. They under pay their nanny, never give holidays off, certainly never do a paid vacation, do not pay SS and expect long hours with lots of free work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not seeing the part that is wrong with this. Those jobs - especially nannying - pay much better and off better benefits than most other jobs the candidates could get with similar skills.

This is not true, in general. Domestic workers are often extremely exploited. It doesn't have to be this way, but it is. This is partially because it costs a lot to have a well-paid, on-the-books nanny after taxes.

-- Someone who has a well-paid, on-the-books nanny...but who also has a very high HHI

Yep the same women talking about equal pay and pay gap are some of the cheapest people I know. They under pay their nanny, never give holidays off, certainly never do a paid vacation, do not pay SS and expect long hours with lots of free work.

Ehh. I pay ours $24/hr. I pay on the books. She gets paid vacation, paid sick time and I pay for her ACA insurance policy. I give her $1000 for her birthday and Christmas. She would walk through fire for me. I think the pay gap is real and women at all sorts of levels get the short end of the stick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really understand the point of the article; it's nothing but UMC navel-gazing to me. Women work. That's a fact of life. If you work, someone has to look after your baby - nanny, daycare, whatever. How do you go from that to concluding that you're getting ahead "on the backs" of women who look after you child? I don't get it. I mean I go to work and someone is getting better off through MY labor (for which I am fairly compensated) so what? I mean are we supposed to do everything ourselves? Am I getting ahead on the back of the metro car operator? My taxi driver? Whoever cooks my lunch? Whoever makes my clothes? Oh stop.

Remember that women who choose domestic work are free agents. They survey the economic landscape and conclude, I have to believe correctly, that nanny care offers the best wages for their skills. Do you think there are other jobs out there that pay more? Go get them. I support you.

Our nanny makes an excellent living with all expenses paid (she lives in). She concluded, correctly, that there is no other job that would pay her as much as this. So how am I supposed to feel guilty? She makes it possible for me to go to work, yes. And I make it possible for her to have a very nice income.

Np. Totally agree. Our nanny is a recent immigrant and speaks no English. Fortunately, I speak her language. We love her. She is family and we pay her on the books, with paid time off, overtime, paid training, etc.

Her alternatives are very limited though. Cleaner for a hotel, dishwasher, etc. Nannying for us is a much better gig with a lot of perks. But she’s free to go anytime and take another job.