Where my pay goes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you afford housing and food if you don't outsource child care, meaning stay home and don't work? Shall everyone build their own house and work the fields not to outsource these either?

And if parents don't outsource childcare then nannies will not have any jobs. Would that be fair and more acceptable to you?

So you do realize that you depend on our labor, as we depend on yours? That is how a society works! Maybe we should all stop trying to cut each other down? As we all do well, we all prosper. What the upper/upper middle class in this country has forgotten, is that when the lower class, and TRUE middle class struggle, this country struggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you afford housing and food if you don't outsource child care, meaning stay home and don't work? Shall everyone build their own house and work the fields not to outsource these either?

And if parents don't outsource childcare then nannies will not have any jobs. Would that be fair and more acceptable to you?

There aren't enough gifs in the world for this baffling "argument."

Yes, build your own home, raise your own kids, and grow your own food. OR pay the people who do those things enough that they can also have homes and kids and food.

How is this so perplexing? If a job needs to be done by a competent adult, it's a fair bet that competent adult has bills of their own to pay - just because it's not the job you chose it isn't worth a living wage?

I just can't with this thread anymore.

Exactly! If you want a private duty nanny, you have to support her. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Of course, let me double your pay just for the asking while there are dozens of others who would do your job for the current level of pay. Does not compute, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, let me double your pay just for the asking while there are dozens of others who would do your job for the current level of pay. Does not compute, sorry.

No. If you're pleased with your average nanny, you may pay her your average wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Of course, let me double your pay just for the asking while there are dozens of others who would do your job for the current level of pay. Does not compute, sorry.

Yet again I say, they are coming for us with pitchforks. Yet again I say, I will not pay you to harvest shrimp, we have slaves for that here. Yet again I ask, how does forcing the "middle" class into an underclass lifestyle 1) turn out historically 2) benefit our great nation 3) sound acceptable to you?

If you are someone's sole employer, and you employ them FT, I do not care if you are Walmart or Mrs. Jones, the salary you pay must be enough to support that person in a healthy way. That includes health insurance, decent groceries, and the ability to choose a living environment that is comfortable and safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, let me double your pay just for the asking while there are dozens of others who would do your job for the current level of pay. Does not compute, sorry.

If you are someone's sole employer, and you employ them FT, I do not care if you are Walmart or Mrs. Jones, the salary you pay must be enough to support that person in a healthy way. That includes health insurance, decent groceries, and the ability to choose a living environment that is comfortable and safe.

Would you or OP care to quantify it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course, let me double your pay just for the asking while there are dozens of others who would do your job for the current level of pay. Does not compute, sorry.

If you are someone's sole employer, and you employ them FT, I do not care if you are Walmart or Mrs. Jones, the salary you pay must be enough to support that person in a healthy way. That includes health insurance, decent groceries, and the ability to choose a living environment that is comfortable and safe.

Would you or OP care to quantify it?

I am neither, but I can tell you with full certainty, your answer is no. As it will depend on the details of each particular situation.

[Anonymous]

Nanny A may be a self-supporting single parent, while Nanny B may be married, but no children. Yet Nanny C maybe be single altogether, with no financial responsibilities, beyond herself.

[Anonymous]

So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

Living wage as defined by the government is below what the OP mentions (15/hr). If Maryland and DC got it wrong what is then living wage? A number please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

Living wage as defined by the government is below what the OP mentions (15/hr). If Maryland and DC got it wrong what is then living wage? A number please?

Well everyone in the main forum thinks you need at least $100k, so why don't we start there! But for real, I'm not sure if the living wage is recalculated each year or not, and I would be curious what factors they use to determine it. Maybe if we knew what those were, and what they value or undervalue certain things at, we could have a real discussion. For example some posters have tried to compare their experiences as grad students 15 years ago to making the same amount today. Obviously it isn't the same. Apartments, even studios are not $750/month in reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

Living wage as defined by the government is below what the OP mentions (15/hr). If Maryland and DC got it wrong what is then living wage? A number please?

Well everyone in the main forum thinks you need at least $100k, so why don't we start there! But for real, I'm not sure if the living wage is recalculated each year or not, and I would be curious what factors they use to determine it. Maybe if we knew what those were, and what they value or undervalue certain things at, we could have a real discussion. For example some posters have tried to compare their experiences as grad students 15 years ago to making the same amount today. Obviously it isn't the same. Apartments, even studios are not $750/month in reality.

PP again. I wanted to add that if we are in agreement that a living wage should be the bottom of what is morally acceptable payment for someone who does the important work of caring for your child, shouldn't nannies with more experience and skills make more? I think $15/hour is an acceptable wage for a newbie nanny watching one infant. More kids, more experience, more responsibilities or chores should equal more money. If you agree with that, maybe we can all agree that no MB should come on here expecting to get the experienced, bilingual, highly recommended, laundry-doing, dinner-cooking, dish-washing, grocery-shopping, taxicab-driving, never late, never sick, always-smiling nanny that everyone wants for the bare minimum self sustaining living wage of $15/hour, or LESS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

Living wage as defined by the government is below what the OP mentions (15/hr). If Maryland and DC got it wrong what is then living wage? A number please?

Well everyone in the main forum thinks you need at least $100k, so why don't we start there! But for real, I'm not sure if the living wage is recalculated each year or not, and I would be curious what factors they use to determine it. Maybe if we knew what those were, and what they value or undervalue certain things at, we could have a real discussion. For example some posters have tried to compare their experiences as grad students 15 years ago to making the same amount today. Obviously it isn't the same. Apartments, even studios are not $750/month in reality.

PP again. I wanted to add that if we are in agreement that a living wage should be the bottom of what is morally acceptable payment for someone who does the important work of caring for your child, shouldn't nannies with more experience and skills make more? I think $15/hour is an acceptable wage for a newbie nanny watching one infant. More kids, more experience, more responsibilities or chores should equal more money. If you agree with that, maybe we can all agree that no MB should come on here expecting to get the experienced, bilingual, highly recommended, laundry-doing, dinner-cooking, dish-washing, grocery-shopping, taxicab-driving, never late, never sick, always-smiling nanny that everyone wants for the bare minimum self sustaining living wage of $15/hour, or LESS.

LOL! WELL said, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the pay should be dependent on how many children she has and whether she is single or not? Wouldn't that discriminate in terms of pay against single people solely on the basis of them being single? Or childless?

No. But as another poster has already said, any nanny you wish to employ on a full time basis, has a right to earn a "living" wage.

Living wage as defined by the government is below what the OP mentions (15/hr). If Maryland and DC got it wrong what is then living wage? A number please?

I noticed that too. But at least one nanny making $14 is still receiving section 8 housing. Anyone know how the federal poverty number relates to the living wage?