Minimum wage rising and nannies wages

[Anonymous]

Maybe a few parents will no longer be able to afford their "working" status.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it will affect nanny wages much. No one chooses a pay rate by saying, "this job is worth double minimum wage." The whole point of raising the minimum is to get even the lowest-paid workers closer to a living wage. $15/hr is still a lot more than $11.50; I don't think we'll see more than a modest bump.

[Anonymous]

My guess is that a significant raise in minimum wage won't impact most families who only need a nanny 40 hours a week. It is when you need someone for 50 hours a week it becomes an issue. We will no longer need a nanny by the time this goes into effect, but if we did we would avoid going over 40 hours by staggering work schedules or hiring an afternoon or Friday nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that a significant raise in minimum wage won't impact most families who only need a nanny 40 hours a week. It is when you need someone for 50 hours a week it becomes an issue. We will no longer need a nanny by the time this goes into effect, but if we did we would avoid going over 40 hours by staggering work schedules or hiring an afternoon or Friday nanny.

$11.50 an hour is too expensive for your nanny? I shudder to think what you pay her now...

[Anonymous]

I never said we pay our nanny $11.50 an hour. In fact, I didn't mention any hourly wage. Reading comprehension on this board, or lack thereof, always amazes me. My point is that if you use a nanny for a significant amount of overtime the increase in minimum wage -depending how much it is increased- can cause a significant increase in childcare costs due to the requirement to pay time and a half after forty hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My guess is that a significant raise in minimum wage won't impact most families who only need a nanny 40 hours a week. It is when you need someone for 50 hours a week it becomes an issue. We will no longer need a nanny by the time this goes into effect, but if we did we would avoid going over 40 hours by staggering work schedules or hiring an afternoon or Friday nanny.

$11.50 an hour is too expensive for your nanny? I shudder to think what you pay her now...

NP here, I don't think that's at all what PP meant. I think she meant an increase in nanny salaries won't make such a difference that families can't afford the nanny anymore unless they are having to pay overtime too. Maybe you should be a little less defensive since I think this poster was on the same side as you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never said we pay our nanny $11.50 an hour. In fact, I didn't mention any hourly wage. Reading comprehension on this board, or lack thereof, always amazes me. My point is that if you use a nanny for a significant amount of overtime the increase in minimum wage -depending how much it is increased- can cause a significant increase in childcare costs due to the requirement to pay time and a half after forty hours.

No, PP, what you said was if you were planning on employing a nanny after the new minimum wage laws went into effect you would avoid having your costs go up by restructuring hours so she wasn't working OT.

The logical assumption, since you've just said that paying $11.50 an hour to someone working 50 hours a week would be an increased cost for you AND have said you currently employ a nanny for that number of hours, is that you currently pay her less.

If you wanted to speak generally about costs, you should watch your phrasing.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how this affects nanny shares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I never said we pay our nanny $11.50 an hour. In fact, I didn't mention any hourly wage. Reading comprehension on this board, or lack thereof, always amazes me. My point is that if you use a nanny for a significant amount of overtime the increase in minimum wage -depending how much it is increased- can cause a significant increase in childcare costs due to the requirement to pay time and a half after forty hours.

No, PP, what you said was if you were planning on employing a nanny after the new minimum wage laws went into effect you would avoid having your costs go up by restructuring hours so she wasn't working OT.

The logical assumption, since you've just said that paying $11.50 an hour to someone working 50 hours a week would be an increased cost for you AND have said you currently employ a nanny for that number of hours, is that you currently pay her less.

If you wanted to speak generally about costs, you should watch your phrasing.

That's not even a little bit what the PP said. I'm not the poster and I understood perfectly what she meant. She's right, you need to work on your reading comprehension. Either that or you are SO defensive that you are reading into things that posters aren't saying. It's not helping your cause. She wasn't disagreeing with you so when you jump on someone who is on your side it just makes you look angry and your argument less effective. It's not just you, this happens a lot on DCUM, everyone gets so defensive they can't see that their anger is making people less likely to listen to them.

[Anonymous]

Then explain WHAT she said?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then explain WHAT she said?

It's been explained more than once but here is one of the answers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here, I don't think that's at all what PP meant. I think she meant an increase in nanny salaries won't make such a difference that families can't afford the nanny anymore unless they are having to pay overtime too.

[Anonymous]

In a nanny share, if the families pay legally, they EACH have to pay at least minimum wage, since each family is an employer, and there is no general exemption from minimum wage laws based on one person being em

[Anonymous]

Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.