Shutdown and furlough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all rant and rave as much as you want (and of course not getting paid would be a terrible burden for anyone), but I learned at 12, when I opened my first bank account, that I was supposed to keep enough money in savings to cover myself and all bills for 6 months out. This served me well when I got a surprise diagnosis of cancer (no income, lots of bills) and imagine it will help me out if I ever find myself unexpectedly out of a job or paycheck too.

If you have enough savings to barely cover 2-4 weeks of your life you are living beyond your means, I don't care who you are. And in the case of having a nanny, typically the most expensive form of childcare, that's an easy place to make a cut.

How nice that life worked out this well for you. You are a asshole if you think it didn't have anything to do with luck.

And OP DID have savings, so drop the smug act. She used them for two "emergencies" already and this is the third in a row.

You're kidding, right? OP chose to have a baby, and chose to take unpaid maternity leave for 3 months. Babies generally take 9 months in the womb. No part of that scenario is an 'emergency.'

That said, if OP can't afford the nanny, she needs to tell her the next 2-week paycheck will be her last, and the nanny can choose whether to wait it out or move on.

OP here. The latest answers remind me why I should never post on DCUM if I want any answers based in reality.

Regarding a nanny being a want and not a need: You are totally wrong. For us, a nanny is a need because my husband and I both work unpredictable hours and travel often, and there is no daycare that would be able to accommodate our hours. We've looked. And we don't have any family in the area, so no way that anyone would be able to help us out.

I mention this not because I feel I owe any explanation, but just so that the authors of the more absurd posts can maybe understand that they don't know anyone's situation and shouldn't be so judgmental. Also, my original question was not "do you think I can afford a nanny." It was "How are people planning to manage paying their nanny if they are furloughed."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can all rant and rave as much as you want (and of course not getting paid would be a terrible burden for anyone), but I learned at 12, when I opened my first bank account, that I was supposed to keep enough money in savings to cover myself and all bills for 6 months out. This served me well when I got a surprise diagnosis of cancer (no income, lots of bills) and imagine it will help me out if I ever find myself unexpectedly out of a job or paycheck too.

If you have enough savings to barely cover 2-4 weeks of your life you are living beyond your means, I don't care who you are. And in the case of having a nanny, typically the most expensive form of childcare, that's an easy place to make a cut.

How nice that life worked out this well for you. You are a asshole if you think it didn't have anything to do with luck.

And OP DID have savings, so drop the smug act. She used them for two "emergencies" already and this is the third in a row.

You're kidding, right? OP chose to have a baby, and chose to take unpaid maternity leave for 3 months. Babies generally take 9 months in the womb. No part of that scenario is an 'emergency.'

That said, if OP can't afford the nanny, she needs to tell her the next 2-week paycheck will be her last, and the nanny can choose whether to wait it out or move on.

OP here. The latest answers remind me why I should never post on DCUM if I want any answers based in reality.

Regarding a nanny being a want and not a need: You are totally wrong. For us, a nanny is a need because my husband and I both work unpredictable hours and travel often, and there is no daycare that would be able to accommodate our hours. We've looked. And we don't have any family in the area, so no way that anyone would be able to help us out.

I mention this not because I feel I owe any explanation, but just so that the authors of the more absurd posts can maybe understand that they don't know anyone's situation and shouldn't be so judgmental. Also, my original question was not "do you think I can afford a nanny." It was "How are people planning to manage paying their nanny if they are furloughed."

Our answer: you should have savings. A nanny is not a need. If you think it is, talk to the low-income single mom going to school and working odd hours. Doubt she has a nanny! It may be a smart convenient decision, but it is NOT a need. If thinking its crazy that people can't pay their bills for a week or two with their emergency savings is absurd then absurd I am. At least I can pay my bills.

[Anonymous]

Agree with 10:29. Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's weird that posters here think that nannies can't possibly survive a paycheck delay a furlough would require, yet accuse MBs of being irresponsible for not having six months pay saved up...to pay the nanny.

Hypocritical nannies, I think.

If you saved, nanny, you can wait out the shutdown, exactly as your employer will.

I have saved, and therefore I could theoretically wait it out. But lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Just because I have built six months worth of savings, does not mean that I want to spend them on my employer getting furloughed. The money in my savings account isn't magical free money, it is money that I have scrimped and saved and worked hard to reserve so that I would be prepared for actual emergencies, such as not being able to earn an income. The furlough simply means that I am not able to earn an income from my current employer--it doesn't tender me unemployable by those who actually have money.


Just as I (your nanny) am not owed employment by you, you (the employer) are not owed a faithful employee. Feel free to not pay your nanny during the furlough. But it is completely unreasonable to suggest that your nanny continue coming into work rather than looking for makeshift work where I can and seeking other employment by someone who is going to be able to pay me more regularly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's weird that posters here think that nannies can't possibly survive a paycheck delay a furlough would require, yet accuse MBs of being irresponsible for not having six months pay saved up...to pay the nanny.

Hypocritical nannies, I think.

If you saved, nanny, you can wait out the shutdown, exactly as your employer will.

I have saved, and therefore I could theoretically wait it out. But lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part. Just because I have built six months worth of savings, does not mean that I want to spend them on my employer getting furloughed. The money in my savings account isn't magical free money, it is money that I have scrimped and saved and worked hard to reserve so that I would be prepared for actual emergencies, such as not being able to earn an income. The furlough simply means that I am not able to earn an income from my current employer--it doesn't tender me unemployable by those who actually have money.


Just as I (your nanny) am not owed employment by you, you (the employer) are not owed a faithful employee. Feel free to not pay your nanny during the furlough. But it is completely unreasonable to suggest that your nanny continue coming into work rather than looking for makeshift work where I can and seeking other employment by someone who is going to be able to pay me more regularly.

This exact argument applies equally well to the furloughed government employees. The sad reality is that this shutdown may force families to make difficult decisions that will have serious impact on others. THat might very well include finding a different job (whether you're a government employee or a nanny or a contractor or a SAHM with a furloughed spouse). That is the ripple effect of a shutdown. It doesn't make the families or the nannies bad people for doing whatever they have to do to keep themselves solvent and safe. All kinds of people are suffering economic hardship because of this, and sadly it will cause a rift between some people where very difficult decisions have to be made. But to apply different standards and judgments to people who are doing their best to earn a living and provide for themselves and their families is arbitrary and unfair.

I would stake my paycheck on the likelihood that every single furloughed government worker would FAR rather be at their job than having to make nightmarish decisions about how long they can afford to employ a nanny when they don't know how long the shutdown will go on. That's a terrible position to be in as a parent, an employee, an employer and a human being. It would be nice if there were more compassion being applied universally to everyone impacted by this nightmare.

[Anonymous]

I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

You don't have to be extremely wealthy to have savings I'm a nanny, a student, and I have a family. My husband and I are rolling in cash, but having the money to cover us for a few months is not only possible but a priority. What we are saying is that you are not entitled to a nanny. That is a decision you've made, and a very expensive one. If you don't have the savings to cover your expenses, including that one, for a period of time, you honestly can't afford it. I can understand if the shutdown went on for a few months, but people are saying they won't be able to pay their bills THIS month without their paycheck, and the nanny is the first thing to go. That's someone who had no business hiring a nanny to begin with.

Also, FYI nannies traditionally were employed by the very wealthy. It is only in recent years that middle class women have decided a nanny is their right, as well as every woman who babysits calling herself a nanny. You most likely employ a sitter, and if her paycheck is going to break your savings, you couldn't afford a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

You don't have to be extremely wealthy to have savings I'm a nanny, a student, and I have a family. My husband and I are rolling in cash, but having the money to cover us for a few months is not only possible but a priority. What we are saying is that you are not entitled to a nanny. That is a decision you've made, and a very expensive one. If you don't have the savings to cover your expenses, including that one, for a period of time, you honestly can't afford it. I can understand if the shutdown went on for a few months, but people are saying they won't be able to pay their bills THIS month without their paycheck, and the nanny is the first thing to go. That's someone who had no business hiring a nanny to begin with.

Also, FYI nannies traditionally were employed by the very wealthy. It is only in recent years that middle class women have decided a nanny is their right, as well as every woman who babysits calling herself a nanny. You most likely employ a sitter, and if her paycheck is going to break your savings, you couldn't afford a nanny.

FYI, traditionally, cars and houses were only owned by the wealthy. Get with modern times, smug nanny. Not every nanny can be employed by a very wealthy family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

You don't have to be extremely wealthy to have savings I'm a nanny, a student, and I have a family. My husband and I are rolling in cash, but having the money to cover us for a few months is not only possible but a priority. What we are saying is that you are not entitled to a nanny. That is a decision you've made, and a very expensive one. If you don't have the savings to cover your expenses, including that one, for a period of time, you honestly can't afford it. I can understand if the shutdown went on for a few months, but people are saying they won't be able to pay their bills THIS month without their paycheck, and the nanny is the first thing to go. That's someone who had no business hiring a nanny to begin with.

Also, FYI nannies traditionally were employed by the very wealthy. It is only in recent years that middle class women have decided a nanny is their right, as well as every woman who babysits calling herself a nanny. You most likely employ a sitter, and if her paycheck is going to break your savings, you couldn't afford a nanny.

FYI, traditionally, cars and houses were only owned by the wealthy. Get with modern times, smug nanny. Not every nanny can be employed by a very wealthy family.

A nanny is not an an accessory/commodity. The price of something produced in mass comes down and suddenly the middle class can afford it. Middle class working moms decided they deserve nannies, and started calling every babysitter a nanny. True nannies are still for the wealthy I'm afraid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

You don't have to be extremely wealthy to have savings I'm a nanny, a student, and I have a family. My husband and I are rolling in cash, but having the money to cover us for a few months is not only possible but a priority. What we are saying is that you are not entitled to a nanny. That is a decision you've made, and a very expensive one. If you don't have the savings to cover your expenses, including that one, for a period of time, you honestly can't afford it. I can understand if the shutdown went on for a few months, but people are saying they won't be able to pay their bills THIS month without their paycheck, and the nanny is the first thing to go. That's someone who had no business hiring a nanny to begin with.

Also, FYI nannies traditionally were employed by the very wealthy. It is only in recent years that middle class women have decided a nanny is their right, as well as every woman who babysits calling herself a nanny. You most likely employ a sitter, and if her paycheck is going to break your savings, you couldn't afford a nanny.

FYI, traditionally, cars and houses were only owned by the wealthy. Get with modern times, smug nanny. Not every nanny can be employed by a very wealthy family.

A nanny is not an an accessory/commodity. The price of something produced in mass comes down and suddenly the middle class can afford it. Middle class working moms decided they deserve nannies, and started calling every babysitter a nanny. True nannies are still for the wealthy I'm afraid.

OMG. The few of you on this stupid soapbox just can't get over yourselves and your fabulous superiority. It's so tiresome.

I'm happily middle class, with a fabulous caregiver for my kids. I don't really care what labels you feel the need to put on us - we work well together, my kids are getting great care, our caregiver is a well compensated gem and we're making it work.

If only we could weed out these banal rants...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really don't understand why some of the nannies on this board keep insisting parents can't afford a nanny unless they are extremely wealthy. Only a tiny percentage of the country has that kind of money. If those were the only people who hired nannies, most of the nannies on this board would be unemployed.

You don't have to be extremely wealthy to have savings I'm a nanny, a student, and I have a family. My husband and I are rolling in cash, but having the money to cover us for a few months is not only possible but a priority. What we are saying is that you are not entitled to a nanny. That is a decision you've made, and a very expensive one. If you don't have the savings to cover your expenses, including that one, for a period of time, you honestly can't afford it. I can understand if the shutdown went on for a few months, but people are saying they won't be able to pay their bills THIS month without their paycheck, and the nanny is the first thing to go. That's someone who had no business hiring a nanny to begin with.

Also, FYI nannies traditionally were employed by the very wealthy. It is only in recent years that middle class women have decided a nanny is their right, as well as every woman who babysits calling herself a nanny. You most likely employ a sitter, and if her paycheck is going to break your savings, you couldn't afford a nanny.

FYI, traditionally, cars and houses were only owned by the wealthy. Get with modern times, smug nanny. Not every nanny can be employed by a very wealthy family.

A nanny is not an an accessory/commodity. The price of something produced in mass comes down and suddenly the middle class can afford it. Middle class working moms decided they deserve nannies, and started calling every babysitter a nanny. True nannies are still for the wealthy I'm afraid.

OMG. The few of you on this stupid soapbox just can't get over yourselves and your fabulous superiority. It's so tiresome.

I'm happily middle class, with a fabulous caregiver for my kids. I don't really care what labels you feel the need to put on us - we work well together, my kids are getting great care, our caregiver is a well compensated gem and we're making it work.

If only we could weed out these banal rants...

I know, it's so ridiculous. For starters, the same "nannies" that are trying to say that only the wealthiest families should have nannies would be out of jobs if that's the case. Given their obnoxious attitudes I hope my "nanny" is really a "babysitter." I wouldn't want one of these "nannies" caring for my children.

Personally I think most nannies don't have this attitude. It's just a few on here and really they are just coming across as insecure. They must have really low self esteem that they need to make themselves feel better this way. It's pathetic.

[Anonymous]

If you don't have enough money to cover 2-4 weeks of severance for your EMPLOYEE(s), you can't afford to have employees. Why is this even an argument? In this case the employee is a nanny, but that's irrelevant.

No, you don't need to be extremely wealthy to have a nanny - my employers are not wealthy, but they have saved aggressively and I have no doubt that had DB not been deemed essential-with-pay, they'd have been able to continue paying me or, at the very least, to pay my severance which is four weeks. Emergencies happen, sure, but you have a responsibility as an employer. Maybe that means you set aside your nanny's severance pay in a savings account and don't touch it unless you need it. Maybe it means you eat out less or don't go on vacation this year. Maybe it doesn't mean anything and you can afford to live as usual. But it is very surprising to me that so many MBs here think they don't have an obligation to pay their employees... who, as an aside, don't receive any of the perks that govt workers do (health insurance, disability, retirement, pensions) so don't even try and pretend we're all in the same boat here.

[Anonymous]

No way!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have enough money to cover 2-4 weeks of severance for your EMPLOYEE(s), you can't afford to have employees. Why is this even an argument? In this case the employee is a nanny, but that's irrelevant.

No, you don't need to be extremely wealthy to have a nanny - my employers are not wealthy, but they have saved aggressively and I have no doubt that had DB not been deemed essential-with-pay, they'd have been able to continue paying me or, at the very least, to pay my severance which is four weeks. Emergencies happen, sure, but you have a responsibility as an employer. Maybe that means you set aside your nanny's severance pay in a savings account and don't touch it unless you need it. Maybe it means you eat out less or don't go on vacation this year. Maybe it doesn't mean anything and you can afford to live as usual. But it is very surprising to me that so many MBs here think they don't have an obligation to pay their employees... who, as an aside, don't receive any of the perks that govt workers do (health insurance, disability, retirement, pensions) so don't even try and pretend we're all in the same boat here.

The truth is, you really don't know the state of your employer's finances and whether they would continue to employ you in the event of an extended furlough. You are assuming this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don't have enough money to cover 2-4 weeks of severance for your EMPLOYEE(s), you can't afford to have employees. Why is this even an argument? In this case the employee is a nanny, but that's irrelevant.

No, you don't need to be extremely wealthy to have a nanny - my employers are not wealthy, but they have saved aggressively and I have no doubt that had DB not been deemed essential-with-pay, they'd have been able to continue paying me or, at the very least, to pay my severance which is four weeks. Emergencies happen, sure, but you have a responsibility as an employer. Maybe that means you set aside your nanny's severance pay in a savings account and don't touch it unless you need it. Maybe it means you eat out less or don't go on vacation this year. Maybe it doesn't mean anything and you can afford to live as usual. But it is very surprising to me that so many MBs here think they don't have an obligation to pay their employees... who, as an aside, don't receive any of the perks that govt workers do (health insurance, disability, retirement, pensions) so don't even try and pretend we're all in the same boat here.

The truth is, you really don't know the state of your employer's finances and whether they would continue to employ you in the event of an extended furlough. You are assuming this.

I mean...I do know this, but I understand that in most scenarios what you say would be true.