Please don't get angry that good nannies deserve a competitive wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If wages were as high as you’d like then a nanny would only be for one percenters.

Yes, and would that really be an issue? Having a nanny is the most elite form of childcare. Someone comes into YOUR home and raises your child YOUR way. Nobody gripes that everyone should have a personal chef or a chauffeur, yet most people are able to feed themselves and get where they need to be. If you can't afford a nanny, that's not a reflection on your success or you as a person, it just means that you don't earn enough money to pay someone else a yearly salary. Stop trying to pay people next to nothing for a luxury.

Of course it would be an issue for the 90 percent of nannies who would be out of work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If wages were as high as you’d like then a nanny would only be for one percenters.

Considering she's an older woman, you really ought to pay her a living wage. Instead, she must depend on her children and a housemate to survive. And you have bargain childcare. Would it really break the bank to pay her an additional dollar or two an hour? Pay her what she's worth to you. No doubt your life would turn upside down if you had to replace her, not to mention your child's life.

Most nanny employers can afford to pay a living wage, but instead they have other priorities. Exotic vacations, new cars, second home, stuff like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If it’s one child $18 is not low with overtime. Would $20 be better, of course, but there are nannies making $15 and under which is severely low in my opinion. In all fairness it’s not the employers responsibility to make sure her nanny is making enough to live. Retail and places like McDonald’s pay minimum wage which is not enough to live on. Even county teachers are well underpaid.

Ugh. So you chose an kind older nanny knowing she'd be less motivated to work through care.com to seek out a better paying job and would be more embarrassed to come to you for a raise. Disgusting really.

If she does ever surprise you and find something else, you'll have little negotiating power.

My favorite part is that "having the run of the house" is supposed to be a perk.

-recent MB

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If wages were as high as you’d like then a nanny would only be for one percenters.

Yes, and would that really be an issue? Having a nanny is the most elite form of childcare. Someone comes into YOUR home and raises your child YOUR way. Nobody gripes that everyone should have a personal chef or a chauffeur, yet most people are able to feed themselves and get where they need to be. If you can't afford a nanny, that's not a reflection on your success or you as a person, it just means that you don't earn enough money to pay someone else a yearly salary. Stop trying to pay people next to nothing for a luxury.

Of course it would be an issue for the 90 percent of nannies who would be out of work.

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If it’s one child $18 is not low with overtime. Would $20 be better, of course, but there are nannies making $15 and under which is severely low in my opinion. In all fairness it’s not the employers responsibility to make sure her nanny is making enough to live. Retail and places like McDonald’s pay minimum wage which is not enough to live on. Even county teachers are well underpaid.

Ugh. So you chose an kind older nanny knowing she'd be less motivated to work through care.com to seek out a better paying job and would be more embarrassed to come to you for a raise. Disgusting really.

If she does ever surprise you and find something else, you'll have little negotiating power.

My favorite part is that "having the run of the house" is supposed to be a perk.

-recent MB

So I wrote the above that you bolder and I’m a nanny. Idk where you got the notion about care.com and “having the run of the house.” Idk anyone forcing a nanny to take a low paying job or stay at one. I know my worth and won’t take just any job or any behavior from a boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If wages were as high as you’d like then a nanny would only be for one percenters.

Yes, and would that really be an issue? Having a nanny is the most elite form of childcare. Someone comes into YOUR home and raises your child YOUR way. Nobody gripes that everyone should have a personal chef or a chauffeur, yet most people are able to feed themselves and get where they need to be. If you can't afford a nanny, that's not a reflection on your success or you as a person, it just means that you don't earn enough money to pay someone else a yearly salary. Stop trying to pay people next to nothing for a luxury.

Of course it would be an issue for the 90 percent of nannies who would be out of work.

+1.

-1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sure, you find the best candidate for the wage you offer. For perspective We pay our nanny $18 an hour and proper overtime and paid vacation and we just did the taxes and her W2 it ended up at $41k in wages including taxes. Which does not include employer federal tax contribution. So that’s another 6-7k we paid. That’s not bad considering it’s one easy kid, run of the house, 8 hours, no driving and we come home early regularly and let her go.

If she's happy, that's all you need. But I still wonder what her monthly budget looks like. Does she have to live with someone to make ends meet?

She bought a townhouse with the help of her kids (she’s older) and using her pay stubs for the bank. She rents out a basement suite to someone as well.

So fortunate that her children are able to help support her on your low wages.

If it’s one child $18 is not low with overtime. Would $20 be better, of course, but there are nannies making $15 and under which is severely low in my opinion. In all fairness it’s not the employers responsibility to make sure her nanny is making enough to live. Retail and places like McDonald’s pay minimum wage which is not enough to live on. Even county teachers are well underpaid.

Ugh. So you chose an kind older nanny knowing she'd be less motivated to work through care.com to seek out a better paying job and would be more embarrassed to come to you for a raise. Disgusting really.

If she does ever surprise you and find something else, you'll have little negotiating power.

My favorite part is that "having the run of the house" is supposed to be a perk.

-recent MB

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

+ 1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

If you have professional degrees and teaching experience, then yes, a parent will pay $47 for a one or two hour session a week or few times a week with their child but very few are going to pay a nanny that much. $20 an hour is reasonable. This is not a skilled job that requires professional degrees and licensure, like a teacher does.

[Anonymous]

If children had a better foundation during the early (gasp!) foundational years (0-3), they would need fewer special ed teachers when they got to school.

Early investment in your child's development can avoid unnecessary problems later on.

Think about it. And here's a hint: If someone wants to put your child in front of the idiot box, fire them. Your child deserves better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

If you have professional degrees and teaching experience, then yes, a parent will pay $47 for a one or two hour session a week or few times a week with their child but very few are going to pay a nanny that much. $20 an hour is reasonable. This is not a skilled job that requires professional degrees and licensure, like a teacher does.

I wouldn’t leave a position as a nanny to become a teacher. In fact I make more as a nanny than my friend who is a teacher. The burnout rate for teachers is super high and all the degrees aren’t worth the actual job which is a lot of red tape. Teacher or not, no one is paying one as a nanny $47 hr especially when the county doesn’t even pay its teachers that high. I disagree that being a nanny is not a skilled job...I am skilled as a nanny and know how to skillfully take care of and provide education to mold a young child (I also have a degree).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

If you have professional degrees and teaching experience, then yes, a parent will pay $47 for a one or two hour session a week or few times a week with their child but very few are going to pay a nanny that much. $20 an hour is reasonable. This is not a skilled job that requires professional degrees and licensure, like a teacher does.

Being a nanny should be a skilled job that requires a professional degree like a teacher. The first three years are the most important and having a nanny who is essentially a housekeeper treating the baby like a sack of potatoes is such a waste of potential. I do hope the importance of narration, engagement and sensory exposure become the norm and the profession of being a nanny changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

If you have professional degrees and teaching experience, then yes, a parent will pay $47 for a one or two hour session a week or few times a week with their child but very few are going to pay a nanny that much. $20 an hour is reasonable. This is not a skilled job that requires professional degrees and licensure, like a teacher does.

Being a nanny should be a skilled job that requires a professional degree like a teacher. The first three years are the most important and having a nanny who is essentially a housekeeper treating the baby like a sack of potatoes is such a waste of potential. I do hope the importance of narration, engagement and sensory exposure become the norm and the profession of being a nanny changes.

No, it shouldn't but if you feel you need to to justify it, go for it. Sensory stuff is a bunch of bunk created by OT's to justify services. Narration and engagement... hmmm... ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people have unrealistic expectations about what $20/hour looks like. i was a nanny up until last year, and now i am a teacher. if i want to work in home instruction i make $47/hour. you are not going to attract a teacher/nanny for $20. i would consider sitting at night with no interaction with the child for $20/hour-just as a warm body. i would not cook, clean, play, or teach for that. i love kids, but you can't expect nanny/babysitting wages to remain stagnant when cost of living does not.

If you have professional degrees and teaching experience, then yes, a parent will pay $47 for a one or two hour session a week or few times a week with their child but very few are going to pay a nanny that much. $20 an hour is reasonable. This is not a skilled job that requires professional degrees and licensure, like a teacher does.

I wouldn’t leave a position as a nanny to become a teacher. In fact I make more as a nanny than my friend who is a teacher. The burnout rate for teachers is super high and all the degrees aren’t worth the actual job which is a lot of red tape. Teacher or not, no one is paying one as a nanny $47 hr especially when the county doesn’t even pay its teachers that high. I disagree that being a nanny is not a skilled job...I am skilled as a nanny and know how to skillfully take care of and provide education to mold a young child (I also have a degree).

You don't need a degree to be a skilled caretaker/nanny. People are paying $40-60+ for tutoring services, but that generally is for an hour at a time, not an all day job so at best, you can get in 3-6 sessions a day with transportation.