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

Forum Index » Money and Finances

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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. [/quote]

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  :roll: [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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

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.  [/quote]
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.
[/quote]

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. [/quote]
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.
[/quote]  hilarious[/quote]
You're right. The care of your own children is a complete joke to some of you. 
Beautiful.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics