what is the going rate for nanny shares and nannies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"This is true but it is true up to a point - in that your salary does go up with years of experience, but it does not do so indefinitely. In every professional occupation (as well as nannying), you will eventually hit a point of experience at which further additional years in the profession no longer generate an additional return. Every profession has a pay ceiling through which it is highly uncommon to break through. Furthermore, the nanny field is disadvantaged in that you may accrue experience and annual raises during your stay with one family, but you are likely to take a pay cut when you start a new job (inevitably) because your countdown of annual raises now has to start anew. "

+1

Not so with me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You really think childcare is so simple, 13:07? Is that why we're turning more and more special needs children?

13:07?

[Anonymous]

13:07 here.

I didn't answer your question because special needs in children is not at all caused by childcare arrangements.

This is pretty elementary and your asking merely highlights your ignorance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please. In what industry does increased experience not also mean more cost to the employer ie. a higher salary to the employee? If you want to hire someone with a ton of experience, you should expect to pay at the higher end of salaries. If you don't want to pay at the higher end of salaries, 20 years of experience better not be on your list of requirements. It annoys me to no end when I see silly first time parents asking for the world in a nanny, but don't want to pay for it. It is disrespectful, and disingenuous of you PP to act as though experience is not a huge factor in the quality of the nanny. To most parents, that is one of the biggest factors, even more so than education level.

This is true but it is true up to a point - in that your salary does go up with years of experience, but it does not do so indefinitely. In every professional occupation (as well as nannying), you will eventually hit a point of experience at which further additional years in the profession no longer generate an additional return. Every profession has a pay ceiling through which it is highly uncommon to break through. Furthermore, the nanny field is disadvantaged in that you may accrue experience and annual raises during your stay with one family, but you are likely to take a pay cut when you start a new job (inevitably) because your countdown of annual raises now has to start anew.

This is the disconnect, and why I don't understand parents who think this way. A worker stays with a particular company for a good number of years, gaining experience and new skills. That employee decides to make a switch to a new company. That company would not offer that employee the same salary they would a green employee. They offer a salary commensurate with experience. You don't start all over with each new job. Why is it okay to do this to a nanny with significant experience and proven longevity with a family? I have been nannying for 6 years now. I started as a college student making $12/hour working a few hours per week. I have increased my experience, my skills, and my references with each new position. I have never taken a pay cut for a new job. I agree that there are ceilings to your earning potential unique to each profession, but I completely disagree that a nanny has to climb the ladder all over again with each new job. If done correctly, a nanny should be increasing her skills and experience base with every position, and seeking out more challenging but more lucrative jobs, like any professional. I went from sitting a few hours per week at a low rate for a professor at my school, to caring for infant triplets for a very wealthy family making money that makes my family's jaw drop when they question my income. However I don't argue that the ceiling exists, and I will be "retiring" from nannying in another year because of it.

The thing is though, that's not true of all professions. In fact, I'd say in most professions if you make a lateral move you salary wouldn't change much. If you switch jobs into a higher position you'd get a higher salary but if its a similar position your prior experience won't help. My husband and I are both physicians and when we moved recently to be closer to family we both took pay cuts despite having years of experience. Our experience helped us get jobs in an oversaturated market, however, starting salary is starting salary whether you have 10 years of experience or are just out of residency.

I have friends who are lawyers and they say the same thing. That's why it's so bad when a lawyer doesn't make partner because if they leave, regardless of their prior experience, they have to go back to a starting associates salary again.

For people who aren't lawyers or doctors its still the same thing. Some companies may pay more than others for the same job but in general a position pays what it pays regardless of past experience. Experience helps you get a job and if there is room for negotiation on salary it can help but there is usually a cap and experience doesn't automatically equal higher pay.

[Anonymous]

Agree completely with 18:05. Also as a hiring manager, I have a range for every job. I may give a little more to someone with more experience but they don't move into the next job band because they are overqualified for the job they are applying to get or because they have been doing the same thing for 20 years.

Because nanny jobs are short term, the annual raise is something that parents tolerate because its only another year or two. The annual many raises far exceed the market value of the nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:07 here.

I didn't answer your question because special needs in children is not at all caused by childcare arrangements.

This is pretty elementary and your asking merely highlights your ignorance.

Is that why the whole world cares so much about "quality childcare", except you?

[Anonymous]

Bad care of a child often has often has lifelong consequences. Abuse and/or neglect can have horrific consequences, not just for that family, but for the greater society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"This is true but it is true up to a point - in that your salary does go up with years of experience, but it does not do so indefinitely. In every professional occupation (as well as nannying), you will eventually hit a point of experience at which further additional years in the profession no longer generate an additional return. Every profession has a pay ceiling through which it is highly uncommon to break through. Furthermore, the nanny field is disadvantaged in that you may accrue experience and annual raises during your stay with one family, but you are likely to take a pay cut when you start a new job (inevitably) because your countdown of annual raises now has to start anew. "

+1

Not so with me.

Do you want to share your salary history with us, year after year?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bad care of a child often has often has lifelong consequences. Abuse and/or neglect can have horrific consequences, not just for that family, but for the greater society.

Bad childcare does not produce a child with special needs. Children with special needs are that way at birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please. In what industry does increased experience not also mean more cost to the employer ie. a higher salary to the employee? If you want to hire someone with a ton of experience, you should expect to pay at the higher end of salaries. If you don't want to pay at the higher end of salaries, 20 years of experience better not be on your list of requirements. It annoys me to no end when I see silly first time parents asking for the world in a nanny, but don't want to pay for it. It is disrespectful, and disingenuous of you PP to act as though experience is not a huge factor in the quality of the nanny. To most parents, that is one of the biggest factors, even more so than education level.

This is true but it is true up to a point - in that your salary does go up with years of experience, but it does not do so indefinitely. In every professional occupation (as well as nannying), you will eventually hit a point of experience at which further additional years in the profession no longer generate an additional return. Every profession has a pay ceiling through which it is highly uncommon to break through. Furthermore, the nanny field is disadvantaged in that you may accrue experience and annual raises during your stay with one family, but you are likely to take a pay cut when you start a new job (inevitably) because your countdown of annual raises now has to start anew.

This is the disconnect, and why I don't understand parents who think this way. A worker stays with a particular company for a good number of years, gaining experience and new skills. That employee decides to make a switch to a new company. That company would not offer that employee the same salary they would a green employee. They offer a salary commensurate with experience. You don't start all over with each new job. Why is it okay to do this to a nanny with significant experience and proven longevity with a family? I have been nannying for 6 years now. I started as a college student making $12/hour working a few hours per week. I have increased my experience, my skills, and my references with each new position. I have never taken a pay cut for a new job. I agree that there are ceilings to your earning potential unique to each profession, but I completely disagree that a nanny has to climb the ladder all over again with each new job. If done correctly, a nanny should be increasing her skills and experience base with every position, and seeking out more challenging but more lucrative jobs, like any professional. I went from sitting a few hours per week at a low rate for a professor at my school, to caring for infant triplets for a very wealthy family making money that makes my family's jaw drop when they question my income. However I don't argue that the ceiling exists, and I will be "retiring" from nannying in another year because of it.

Thank you!...The poster who feels that she can determine the nanny salary ceiling is being presumptuous and arrogant. Also, she's minimizing what a great nanny can bring to a child's life. I know what the great families I've worked with meant/mean to me, and I know that I brought something to their lives. I've received mother's day gifts from parents, and other family members, because they felt, I truly loved and treated their children, as if they were mine. Any comments, that equate caregiving to a brainless job, that anyone could do, are ignorant, dismissive, and insensitive. I've grown to anticipate this sentiment, whenever nanny salaries are mentioned on this website. If you state that the job requires little, or no effort, or experience, then you can nickel and dime all potential employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad care of a child often has often has lifelong consequences. Abuse and/or neglect can have horrific consequences, not just for that family, but for the greater society.

Bad childcare does not produce a child with special needs. Children with special needs are that way at birth.

You must be right. That's why we're making such a fuss about "The Hell of American Daycare". Child neglect and abuse has consequences. But you just keep on believing that nothing matters. Moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Please. In what industry does increased experience not also mean more cost to the employer ie. a higher salary to the employee? If you want to hire someone with a ton of experience, you should expect to pay at the higher end of salaries. If you don't want to pay at the higher end of salaries, 20 years of experience better not be on your list of requirements. It annoys me to no end when I see silly first time parents asking for the world in a nanny, but don't want to pay for it. It is disrespectful, and disingenuous of you PP to act as though experience is not a huge factor in the quality of the nanny. To most parents, that is one of the biggest factors, even more so than education level.

This is true but it is true up to a point - in that your salary does go up with years of experience, but it does not do so indefinitely. In every professional occupation (as well as nannying), you will eventually hit a point of experience at which further additional years in the profession no longer generate an additional return. Every profession has a pay ceiling through which it is highly uncommon to break through. Furthermore, the nanny field is disadvantaged in that you may accrue experience and annual raises during your stay with one family, but you are likely to take a pay cut when you start a new job (inevitably) because your countdown of annual raises now has to start anew.

This is the disconnect, and why I don't understand parents who think this way. A worker stays with a particular company for a good number of years, gaining experience and new skills. That employee decides to make a switch to a new company. That company would not offer that employee the same salary they would a green employee. They offer a salary commensurate with experience. You don't start all over with each new job. Why is it okay to do this to a nanny with significant experience and proven longevity with a family? I have been nannying for 6 years now. I started as a college student making $12/hour working a few hours per week. I have increased my experience, my skills, and my references with each new position. I have never taken a pay cut for a new job. I agree that there are ceilings to your earning potential unique to each profession, but I completely disagree that a nanny has to climb the ladder all over again with each new job. If done correctly, a nanny should be increasing her skills and experience base with every position, and seeking out more challenging but more lucrative jobs, like any professional. I went from sitting a few hours per week at a low rate for a professor at my school, to caring for infant triplets for a very wealthy family making money that makes my family's jaw drop when they question my income. However I don't argue that the ceiling exists, and I will be "retiring" from nannying in another year because of it.

Thank you!...The poster who feels that she can determine the nanny salary ceiling is being presumptuous and arrogant. Also, she's minimizing what a great nanny can bring to a child's life. I know what the great families I've worked with meant/mean to me, and I know that I brought something to their lives. I've received mother's day gifts from parents, and other family members, because they felt, I truly loved and treated their children, as if they were mine. Any comments, that equate caregiving to a brainless job, that anyone could do, are ignorant, dismissive, and insensitive. I've grown to anticipate this sentiment, whenever nanny salaries are mentioned on this website. If you state that the job requires little, or no effort, or experience, then you can nickel and dime all potential employees.

Well said! It's how some parents deal with their conflicted emotions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad care of a child often has often has lifelong consequences. Abuse and/or neglect can have horrific consequences, not just for that family, but for the greater society.

Bad childcare does not produce a child with special needs. Children with special needs are that way at birth.

You must be right. That's why we're making such a fuss about "The Hell of American Daycare". Child neglect and abuse has consequences. But you just keep on believing that nothing matters. Moron.

There's a HUGE difference between a child with special needs and consequences due to abuse. No one is saying bad child care doesn't have any consequences but it doesn't create children with special needs because, as PP said, children with special needs are born that way. You need to learn the difference before you start calling people morons, it just makes you look like an ignorant bully.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bad care of a child often has often has lifelong consequences. Abuse and/or neglect can have horrific consequences, not just for that family, but for the greater society.

Bad childcare does not produce a child with special needs. Children with special needs are that way at birth.

You must be right. That's why we're making such a fuss about "The Hell of American Daycare". Child neglect and abuse has consequences. But you just keep on believing that nothing matters. Moron.

There's a HUGE difference between a child with special needs and consequences due to abuse. No one is saying bad child care doesn't have any consequences but it doesn't create children with special needs because, as PP said, children with special needs are born that way. You need to learn the difference before you start calling people morons, it just makes you look like an ignorant bully.

Don't you know that abused children are more likely to become abusers? Their mental health has been compromised. "Special needs" can easily develop.

We still don't know if Adam Lanza had been abused. We do know he was neglected. Even though he was "intellegent", he was definately "special needs". Maybe his parents smoked when he was in utero, or whatever, so yes, he was likely born with some difficulties. Interesting how it usually takes several years for the special needs to present.

I'd want a detailed history of the pregnancy, the birth, and the caregiving, if some special needs developed over time. Would you be defensive about that? Do you think Adam's psychiatrist collected these details from his parents?

[Anonymous]

You do realize that abuse is statistically far more likely with a nanny than in a daycare center, don't you? One of the biggest reasons parents choose daycare over nannies is not trusting a non-supervised adult with a non-verbal child. You sound so unhinged and ignorant you may be making this point.