The *real* price of an additional child for Nanny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think anyone said the pay should be doubled, the topic is regarding an 1-2 dollar increase.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The market determines the rate. Good luck going from $15 to $30 when a baby arrives.

You have no clue what the real "market rate" is. All you do know, is what your friends tell you.

I don't have any nanny friends. Also, I have a firm grasp on the market rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The market determines the rate. Good luck going from $15 to $30 when a baby arrives.

You have no clue what the real "market rate" is. All you do know, is what your friends tell you.

I don't have any nanny friends. Also, I have a firm grasp on the market rate.

Even if you own one of the domestic payroll companies or nanny agencies, that is only one corner of the market. So how is it that you believe you have a "firm grasp on the market rate"? I hope you are not going to cite one of the many polls that ask people to claim what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So interesting how when your're doing a share, you want to pay only 1/2 of the nanny's rates.

However, if it's your new baby doubling (at least) nanny's responsibilities, then it's worth only $1-2. extra pay.

Are nannies really THAT stupid???

No one doubles their workload for an extra $2/hr.

....No one except for dumb nannies who can't do basic mathematics.

The answer to your question is on the surface and I suspect you know what it is. Still, I will humor you and explain why the math works the way it does.

When you nanny for a single child, that child gets 100% of your attention. This is why I'll be paying the nanny a 100% rate for that one child. For the sake of the argument, $15/hr.

When the second child enters the picture, assuming the same nanny stays on, each child in the family gets 50% of the nanny's attention. Not 100%. You do not magically clone yourself just because the family has two children now. Your workload does not double because it's impossible. The first child gets less because now you have to give some of your time and effort to the second child. That's OK because that's expected. If you take offense at the notion that the first child is now getting less, please explain how is it that you can continue to do everything you USED to do that child in the past and STILL have time for a newborn. You can't. The answer is that you start doing less for child #1 so that you have for child #2. This is not a judgment of your skills or quality. This is the reality that when you take care of 2 children vs. one, each child gets less of you. The parents understand that.

This is why your rate does not double. In effect, you are now running a share with 2 kids of the same family, and you're getting a share rate of $8-$9 per child, or $16-$18/hr.

In an actual share, you'll probably make a dollar or two more (so $19-$20/hr) to account for more hassle and logistics as two families are involved instead of one.

If you have other questions, feel free to ask.

Thank you PP, you answered the OP's question (or responded to OP's statement?) and you're spot on. You said it better than I can. Especially the part in bold.

[Anonymous]

So parents who give birth to a second child are short-changing the first child, according to pp's logic....

Some parents take the opposite view, thank God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So parents who give birth to a second child are short-changing the first child, according to pp's logic....

Some parents take the opposite view, thank God.

You aren't making any sense. No one brought up shortchanging. When the second child is born, two children have to share what used to go to one. Time, toys, space, backyard, money, their parents' attention. This is not a judgment on parents, this is a reflection of reality. There's nothing wrong with sharing but don't pretend that it doesn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So parents who give birth to a second child are short-changing the first child, according to pp's logic....

Some parents take the opposite view, thank God.

You aren't making any sense. No one brought up shortchanging. When the second child is born, two children have to share what used to go to one. Time, toys, space, backyard, money, their parents' attention. This is not a judgment on parents, this is a reflection of reality. There's nothing wrong with sharing but don't pretend that it doesn't happen.

Most of us consider having the opportunity to share, a positive, rather than a liability.

[Anonymous]

Learning to share is essential to healthy early childhood development. But seeing how many parents here don't want that "problem", we can easily understand how we foster human selfishness.

Jump forward a couple of years. Oh my, Johnny has an "impulse control" disorder. Let's run for the meds! Turn Johnny into a pleasant behaving zombie.

Amazing how these things evolve.

[Anonymous]

Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of great things about siblings. I have 2 kids and mine have always been in shares (they are about 4 yrs apart). But 1 adult to 2 kids ratio is not the same level of attention as 1 adult to 1 kid. I know - i just spent all day at home being torn in 2 for half of it since the kids are still not yet at "play great together" stages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of great things about siblings. I have 2 kids and mine have always been in shares (they are about 4 yrs apart). But 1 adult to 2 kids ratio is not the same level of attention as 1 adult to 1 kid. I know - i just spent all day at home being torn in 2 for half of it since the kids are still not yet at "play great together" stages.

It's your attitude that concerns me, that you feel torn apart, with just two children?? Have you taken any parenting classes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of great things about siblings. I have 2 kids and mine have always been in shares (they are about 4 yrs apart). But 1 adult to 2 kids ratio is not the same level of attention as 1 adult to 1 kid. I know - i just spent all day at home being torn in 2 for half of it since the kids are still not yet at "play great together" stages.

It's your attitude that concerns me, that you feel torn apart, with just two children?? Have you taken any parenting classes?

You are just such an annoying troublemaking troll on this board.

Your lack of logic and desire to pick a fight with people who post straightforward facts is obnoxious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't be ridiculous - there are lots of great things about siblings. I have 2 kids and mine have always been in shares (they are about 4 yrs apart). But 1 adult to 2 kids ratio is not the same level of attention as 1 adult to 1 kid. I know - i just spent all day at home being torn in 2 for half of it since the kids are still not yet at "play great together" stages.

It's your attitude that concerns me, that you feel torn apart, with just two children?? Have you taken any parenting classes?

You are just such an annoying troublemaking troll on this board.

Your lack of logic and desire to pick a fight with people who post straightforward facts is obnoxious.

Parenting a child is so much more annoying than parenting a puppy, especially when you haven't had your parenting classes yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So parents who give birth to a second child are short-changing the first child, according to pp's logic....

Some parents take the opposite view, thank God.

You aren't making any sense. No one brought up shortchanging. When the second child is born, two children have to share what used to go to one. Time, toys, space, backyard, money, their parents' attention. This is not a judgment on parents, this is a reflection of reality. There's nothing wrong with sharing but don't pretend that it doesn't happen.

Most of us consider having the opportunity to share, a positive, rather than a liability.

It's just so great that you have this attitude. Are you in the market for an apartment to rent perhaps? I got a great one for you. We'd like you to pay full price. You'll have two roommates; the price, though, is still for single occupancy. What? You want a reduction in rate? How selfish of you! Most of us would consider the opportunity to share a positive rather than grounds for rate reduction. Shame on you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Learning to share is essential to healthy early childhood development. But seeing how many parents here don't want that "problem", we can easily understand how we foster human selfishness.

Jump forward a couple of years. Oh my, Johnny has an "impulse control" disorder. Let's run for the meds! Turn Johnny into a pleasant behaving zombie.

Amazing how these things evolve.

What to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're right, there are professional caretakers that make professional salaries. Nurses, people who work in hospice, etc. But you know what? Their schedules are all over the place, they're usually on call when they're not working, and they have to deal with bosses, patients, and the patient's family members. They don't get to come home at the end of a long day and complain on an anonymous forum about their job. If you want to be wealthy, don't be a nanny. If you love kids and find that your nanny job is paying the bills and helping you get by, fantastic. But don't confuse the two.

[phone]