Is it possible to hire a FT nanny for around $30K?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. So, it looks like there is a consensus. Daycare it is.

I really respect your decision to go with Daycare, rather than underpay a nanny! You could find someone but they'd either be terrible or deserve more.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely you could swing this if you could manage a live-in position. Is this possible?

[Anonymous]

There are people who would do it for this rate, but you may have to compromise on things such as experience and education. You may be able to find an older nanny whose house is paid for who is just looking for a little extra money and something to do.You will still need to factor in vacation, sick time, paid holidays and such. Lastly, you may realistically be able to find a decent nanny share. Don't let the naysayers dissuade you. Throw your ad out there into cyberspace and see what kind of applicants you get. The economy isn't so great that no good candidates will apply. Make it an attractive job, be agood bboss and you'll find someone. Or you won't. In either case you'll have your answer.

[Anonymous]

A nanny share would be possible or realize you would be hiring a new nanny. That isn't to say the nanny will be bad, but you would probably end up with an inexperienced nanny with that salary.

[Anonymous]

In my area $13 is average/slightly above average but I'm in the midwest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think its fair to try to make it a straight comparison money wise. You'd be comparing apples to oranges. You're saying it would cost you around or a little less than $30k/year for daycare for 2. You'd need to pay bit more for your own nanny, but with that you get: more oversight and control over the care of your children, your children are cared for in their own home, take naps in their own bed, eat their own food, and play with their own toys, you have more flexibility in your desired schedule, you don't have to miss work for every runny nose, and your newborn will stay much healthier. For what you get, I think a nanny is definitely the better deal for 2 children, but I do think it will (and should) cost you more than $30k/year. Your employee shouldn't need public assistance.

Well, if the OP can only afford $30K, then that's all that matters.

That said, $13/hour isn't a lot for two kids, plus you'll have overtime and employment taxes to cover. So you could hire someone, but probably not a great candidate.

Not true.
I am tired of hearing the "That is all I can afford" excuse.

I don't walk into Red Lobster and tell the waiter I really want some fresh lobster, but cannot afford it because I am a single mother, my husband just got laid off, etc. I don't get my hair colored and tell my hair dresser I only can afford a hair cut.

Why should nanny employers be any different?

Sorry if I seem so angry, but I have had this line run on me so often it makes me ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think its fair to try to make it a straight comparison money wise. You'd be comparing apples to oranges. You're saying it would cost you around or a little less than $30k/year for daycare for 2. You'd need to pay bit more for your own nanny, but with that you get: more oversight and control over the care of your children, your children are cared for in their own home, take naps in their own bed, eat their own food, and play with their own toys, you have more flexibility in your desired schedule, you don't have to miss work for every runny nose, and your newborn will stay much healthier. For what you get, I think a nanny is definitely the better deal for 2 children, but I do think it will (and should) cost you more than $30k/year. Your employee shouldn't need public assistance.

Well, if the OP can only afford $30K, then that's all that matters.

That said, $13/hour isn't a lot for two kids, plus you'll have overtime and employment taxes to cover. So you could hire someone, but probably not a great candidate.

Not true.
I am tired of hearing the "That is all I can afford" excuse.

I don't walk into Red Lobster and tell the waiter I really want some fresh lobster, but cannot afford it because I am a single mother, my husband just got laid off, etc. I don't get my hair colored and tell my hair dresser I only can afford a hair cut.

Why should nanny employers be any different?

Sorry if I seem so angry, but I have had this line run on me so often it makes me ill.

I don't think PPs point was that if that is all she can afford then that's what she should pay. She specifically said $13/hr isn't a lot. OP was trying to decide if she should do daycare or a nanny. The first poster quoted above was saying you can't compare because you get more with a nanny than with a daycare so the nanny deserves more than $30K/yr. The next poster was saying that's fine but if OP can't afford more than $30K then the rest doesn't really matter. She just has to go with daycare.

To compare to your analogy, I think she was saying if you are trying to decide between the flounder and the lobster but you can't afford the lobster you shouldn't bother to compare and you should just get the flounder.

[Anonymous]

I make 26k in Baltimore, want to hire me? Lol

[Anonymous]

I'm just outside of DC in Howard County Maryland and I make 30k. You can certainly find someone at that price range - you may just find someone with less experience or who isn't planning to nanny as a career (like me - I nanny because I'm in grad school for speech therapy)

[Anonymous]

[quote

Not true.
I am tired of hearing the "That is all I can afford" excuse.

I don't walk into Red Lobster and tell the waiter I really want some fresh lobster, but cannot afford it because I am a single mother, my husband just got laid off, etc. I don't get my hair colored and tell my hair dresser I only can afford a hair cut.

Why should nanny employers be any different?

Sorry if I seem so angry, but I have had this line run on me so often it makes me ill.

PPs sure proved you wrong.