$1,000 a week in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not me who says this. It is science. Otherwise, all the kids of geniuses would be geniuses, if it were genetics only. The child greatly benefits when their caregiver is smart, loving, polite and educated.

But you’re not educated at all compared to what the rich nanny families consider educated is the point. Did you have 3 top Ivy League degrees by 25? Because that’s what my husband and I consider educated, definitely not an undergrad degree from a low ranked school. If you’ve got the Ivy pedigree, you’re nannying post college for a good connection if at all. And I’ll be honest those are dream candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(Chevy Chase, MD)I get $1200 weekly before taxes, 1 baby only. Add the Health Insurance stipend $350 monthly, 10 days PTO and all holidays paid. 5 days of sick leave.

For how many hours/week?

40 hours (8-4) overtime occasionally and it’s paid time and half.

[Anonymous]

PP who is dreaming of Ivy league grad nanny, you just made my day. I have not laughed so hard for probably a month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP who is dreaming of Ivy league grad nanny, you just made my day. I have not laughed so hard for probably a month.

Except a few of my friends did it. The key is, usually it's for some big deal connection, so they do it for a year and then go into consulting, etc. It's a good easy break year, if you generally like kids, before getting the actual job making money that requires grinding. Better than TFA.

Of course, the jobs are found either via the personal network as described above, or in a few instances, alumni networks (like eating club members over the generations might connect at reunions or something).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that the going rate now weekly for one baby (6 months)? My former colleague in DC was interviewing potentials and I don’t know if she’s getting the right number. It sounds awful high.

That's $52,000/year. Not even remotely high.
With no OT that's $25/hr which is not high. With OT $18/hr.

Nannies have the same living expenses that you have.

Everyone needs the same basics but some of it is life choices.

Rent/mortgage, food, phone, car, insurance, savings-- what do you suggest they should do without?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is that the going rate now weekly for one baby (6 months)? My former colleague in DC was interviewing potentials and I don’t know if she’s getting the right number. It sounds awful high.

That's $52,000/year. Not even remotely high.
With no OT that's $25/hr which is not high. With OT $18/hr.

Nannies have the same living expenses that you have.

Everyone needs the same basics but some of it is life choices.

Rent/mortgage, food, phone, car, insurance, savings-- what do you suggest they should do without?

Is this even a question? Savings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No nanny I know in DC gets less than 25 hr for one child, and most people get 27-28. If your nanny can not pass basic "quality control" then why did you hire her? I can answer for you, you did not care about quality as long as you can get anyone cheap. Not a smart decision, PP. These early years form your child future personality, so you need to have someone who actually helps with that task. Also, you only will be paying the nanny for a couple of years, so for many it is worth getting the best.

You’re telling me that a nanny with a high school diploma and little to no babysitting experience is making $25/hr, or $52k per year - roughly the starting salary of a college grad? And if you think $25/hr is the baseline, what is a 20 year nanny veteran making? $250k/year?

I don’t think parents are looking for the “cheapest” option per se. I think they have to do a financial calculus for their family. If a working mom is making less than, say, $80k per year, it makes sense for her to stay home with her child, since her salary is just covering the nanny’s salary plus taxes. So I can understand working moms who don’t make much more than $100k trying to save some income for their own retirement and get a “cheaper” nanny.

Also a child’s personality is largely influenced by genetics (aka nature) and parents. A truly heinous nanny abusing a child will absolute cause short and long term damage but a so so nanny isn’t going to really “shape” a child’s personality nearly as much as parents and genetics do.

Your ignorance is staggering. When most nannies ‘parent’ the child during more waking hours than most parents do, how exactly do you imagine you’re shaping your child’s development? In your dreams?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No nanny I know in DC gets less than 25 hr for one child, and most people get 27-28. If your nanny can not pass basic "quality control" then why did you hire her? I can answer for you, you did not care about quality as long as you can get anyone cheap. Not a smart decision, PP. These early years form your child future personality, so you need to have someone who actually helps with that task. Also, you only will be paying the nanny for a couple of years, so for many it is worth getting the best.

You’re telling me that a nanny with a high school diploma and little to no babysitting experience is making $25/hr, or $52k per year - roughly the starting salary of a college grad? And if you think $25/hr is the baseline, what is a 20 year nanny veteran making? $250k/year?

I don’t think parents are looking for the “cheapest” option per se. I think they have to do a financial calculus for their family. If a working mom is making less than, say, $80k per year, it makes sense for her to stay home with her child, since her salary is just covering the nanny’s salary plus taxes. So I can understand working moms who don’t make much more than $100k trying to save some income for their own retirement and get a “cheaper” nanny.

Also a child’s personality is largely influenced by genetics (aka nature) and parents. A truly heinous nanny abusing a child will absolute cause short and long term damage but a so so nanny isn’t going to really “shape” a child’s personality nearly as much as parents and genetics do.

Your ignorance is staggering. When most nannies ‘parent’ the child during more waking hours than most parents do, how exactly do you imagine you’re shaping your child’s development? In your dreams?

Hah, yea, this is the temperament of someone anyone would hire to ‘parent’ their children.

Lady, you’re the help. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No nanny I know in DC gets less than 25 hr for one child, and most people get 27-28. If your nanny can not pass basic "quality control" then why did you hire her? I can answer for you, you did not care about quality as long as you can get anyone cheap. Not a smart decision, PP. These early years form your child future personality, so you need to have someone who actually helps with that task. Also, you only will be paying the nanny for a couple of years, so for many it is worth getting the best.

You’re telling me that a nanny with a high school diploma and little to no babysitting experience is making $25/hr, or $52k per year - roughly the starting salary of a college grad? And if you think $25/hr is the baseline, what is a 20 year nanny veteran making? $250k/year?

I don’t think parents are looking for the “cheapest” option per se. I think they have to do a financial calculus for their family. If a working mom is making less than, say, $80k per year, it makes sense for her to stay home with her child, since her salary is just covering the nanny’s salary plus taxes. So I can understand working moms who don’t make much more than $100k trying to save some income for their own retirement and get a “cheaper” nanny.

Also a child’s personality is largely influenced by genetics (aka nature) and parents. A truly heinous nanny abusing a child will absolute cause short and long term damage but a so so nanny isn’t going to really “shape” a child’s personality nearly as much as parents and genetics do.

Your ignorance is staggering. When most nannies ‘parent’ the child during more waking hours than most parents do, how exactly do you imagine you’re shaping your child’s development? In your dreams?

You’re changing the narrative. Earlier post was “nannies shape your child’s personality” and a few PPs rightfully noted that personality is largely based on genetics and other things completely unrelated to childcare - heck even events that occur to a fetus in utero can impact its personality.

Now you’re claiming that a nanny shapes a child’s development. I agree with that. But in the same way that the library does, preschool teachers do, summer camps do, childrens museums do, etc etc. I just don’t think it’s controversial to say that, in general, a parent will have far more influence on who their child becomes than the nanny.

I hear you on the number of waking hours a nanny spends with a child. Probably 40 hours/week. But parents typically spend all weekend with their children, typically care for the child in the middle of the night, when the kid is sick, on significant events (holidays, birthdays, etc). Parents in general prefer their parents to a nanny (hence one reason why nannies don’t want parents around during their shift). Kids are more bonded to their parents, even if the nanny spends a significant amount of time a nanny (not typically more than a parent though).