If you have an established history of being an above average professional with above average salary

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I was working. You know...doing my job? Sorry I can't be on the forums non-stop clicking refresh, waiting anxiously for your response. I have better things to do with my time.

Good for you and your paychecks.

Who are you responding to?
The well paid nannies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP I think the OP was hoping that you would say that you do not lower your expectations and would expect to make the same at a new job as you were at the end of 5 year job.

Whether you or not you take a salary cut when you start a new job really depends on the rate of salary inflation at your previous job. If you started at the higher end and your salary did not increase significantly due to raises then you wouldn't drop your salary requirements for a new job. If your salary increased by more than 5-10% every year then you would need to drop your expectations.

You need only one family who wants you and only you. Most families wish they could afford (and find), better than what they have to settle for. And they complain forever, or keep getting new nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30/hr in California, 2 kids... I don't care if you call me a troll or a liar.

Depends which area of Cali and whether you are saying that is the average or you are on the high end of compensation and education/expertise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30/hr in California, 2 kids... I don't care if you call me a troll or a liar.

Depends which area of Cali and whether you are saying that is the average or you are on the high end of compensation and education/expertise.

I think it matters more that she's tops and appropriately compensated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30/hr in California, 2 kids... I don't care if you call me a troll or a liar.

Those of us who are nannies, understand that only a few are top-notch, and are compensated accordingly.

It's the same in *every* profession.

If the quality of your services is anything like the quality of your written language, you aren't as top-notch as you think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP I think the OP was hoping that you would say that you do not lower your expectations and would expect to make the same at a new job as you were at the end of 5 year job.

Whether you or not you take a salary cut when you start a new job really depends on the rate of salary inflation at your previous job. If you started at the higher end and your salary did not increase significantly due to raises then you wouldn't drop your salary requirements for a new job. If your salary increased by more than 5-10% every year then you would need to drop your expectations.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, I was working. You know...doing my job? Sorry I can't be on the forums non-stop clicking refresh, waiting anxiously for your response. I have better things to do with my time.

Good for you and your paychecks.

+1 ----------- Also, 17:52 and 17:56 is the same lying troll. She doesn't make nearly as much as she claims. LOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, my expectations would not change. I would not necessarily to expect to be earning the same at a new job as I'd earned after 5 years at an old one, but I would be looking for something comparable.

In my area the options for that tend to be:

Working for a semi-high-profile family

Start at a slightly-moderately lower salary with formal review/raise negotiations scheduled ahead of time

Nanny share (for 2 kids these start at $25/hr where I am)

And where is this? cause I don't buy it.

Mercer Island, outside of Seattle.

I guess 12:51 isn't coming back to call me a liar again, eh? So was my answer was specific enough for you, or would you like the street name too?

Lol. 12:51 is no doubt nothing but a cheapskate, and is afraid of her bargain nanny finding out.

You are 17:52 so stop pretending you're someone else commenting. Pathetic lmao. Btw, we all know that 99% of nannies don't make $25+/hour regardless of where s/he is from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:30/hr in California, 2 kids... I don't care if you call me a troll or a liar.

Depends which area of Cali and whether you are saying that is the average or you are on the high end of compensation and education/expertise.

I think it matters more that she's tops and appropriately compensated.

Are you the $30/ hr nanny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Why is it so hard for DC nannies to believe nannies in different parts of the country make significantly more? "

because the turning of this board into a non-DC specific one has totally gutted its utility in terms of compensation norms. Maybe they pay $50/hr in Beveral Hills; that has zero impact on what happens here in DC. So compensation discussions turn into a total waste of time when they are not about a specific area.

If you notice, we happen to be in the GENERAL discussion area of the forum as well. There are regional sections, and that is where discussions that are region specific (like with local rates) should take place. General discussions should have no impact by where someone is located.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Why is it so hard for DC nannies to believe nannies in different parts of the country make significantly more? "

because the turning of this board into a non-DC specific one has totally gutted its utility in terms of compensation norms. Maybe they pay $50/hr in Beveral Hills; that has zero impact on what happens here in DC. So compensation discussions turn into a total waste of time when they are not about a specific area.

If you notice, we happen to be in the GENERAL discussion area of the forum as well. There are regional sections, and that is where discussions that are region specific (like with local rates) should take place. General discussions should have no impact by where someone is located.

Are you under the (mistaken) impression that no nanny in the DC area earns $25/hr?

[Anonymous]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem with the "$25/hr" nanny arises when she goes on a message specifically asking about a rate in an area which isn't hers. Then she will comment that the nanny isn't good enough to earn a high wage/the family is cheap/etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've said it before and I'll say it again: the problem with the "$25/hr" nanny arises when she goes on a message specifically asking about a rate in an area which isn't hers. Then she will comment that the nanny isn't good enough to earn a high wage/the family is cheap/etc.

You sound confused.

[Anonymous]

Nannies at the higher end of the scale have more difficulty retaining inflated rates than nannies at the lower end of the scale. The overall inflation being out of synch with the general market is the primary driver but nannies at the higher end also deal with other issues.

A nanny who can compete for a $18-$20 job 3 years ago is at the ceiling of her skill level. She is may not be less marketable in 3 years but she isn't more marketable so trying to find jobs that are over 20%+ more than what she originally started at is even more difficult. A $10 nanny *may* be less experienced and could have gained experience, education or other capabilities that make her more marketable in 3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nannies at the higher end of the scale have more difficulty retaining inflated rates than nannies at the lower end of the scale. The overall inflation being out of synch with the general market is the primary driver but nannies at the higher end also deal with other issues.

A nanny who can compete for a $18-$20 job 3 years ago is at the ceiling of her skill level. She is may not be less marketable in 3 years but she isn't more marketable so trying to find jobs that are over 20%+ more than what she originally started at is even more difficult. A $10 nanny *may* be less experienced and could have gained experience, education or other capabilities that make her more marketable in 3 years.

What's your point?