Newborn Baby rates are $20-30/hr + PLUS your older children if you have some.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure some do, but they are outliers. Full-time baby nurses are a province of truly wealthy people. They are a minority among nanny employers and it's a very small market. Among the middle-class nanny employers, baby nurses are brought in - if at all - for a few weeks very early on, and that's about it.

[Anonymous]

The truth of the matter is that no one knows for sure, as we have no data on this.

[Anonymous]

We don't have data that would pass scientific standards, but we do have lots of anecdotal information. For instance, if most mothers of infants in your social circle report nanny rates between $14 to $18 for one child, that's one chunk. If the most-used parenting board in this region routinely reports similar rates, that's another chunk. We may not have official census reports, but if you wanted to see the patterns of nanny compensation, you could find out pretty easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don't have data that would pass scientific standards, but we do have lots of anecdotal information. For instance, if most mothers of infants in your social circle report nanny rates between $14 to $18 for one child, that's one chunk. If the most-used parenting board in this region routinely reports similar rates, that's another chunk. We may not have official census reports, but if you wanted to see the patterns of nanny compensation, you could find out pretty easily.

It's been proven that people generally tell the truth about wages that aren't verified.

Show us that study first.

[Anonymous]

This whole obsession with verifiable, scientific data is sort of ridiculous. Parents don't need that. They ask their friends and neighbors, they google salary surveys, they come here...all sources that give them ranges for the average rate in their area. That is plenty of info to help them price their job. If they meet a nanny who wants more, they can decide to negotiate or move on to a new candidate. That's it.

Some so called verifiable data isn't going to require parents to pay a certain rate. It also won't, and shouldn't, change the present system. Market rates reflect the basic economic concept of supply and demand. Where there are few nannies, it is harder to employ one and you pay more. Where there are many nannies, including ones willing to work for very low wages or be paid under the table, nannies are easier to employ at a lower average rate. These are simple concepts.

Some government agencies do collect rate data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for one. If they pull this data from IRS data, that's about the closest you'll get to "verifiable". Of course, people can lie on their taxes. Also,this data still won't account for the people being paid under the table, whose presence in the employment market increases competition for nannies and drive down rates.

It's time to let go of this obsession with "verifiable" rate data. It's a meaningless and useless question.

If nannies want to raise market rates, energy should be spent encouraging nannies to refuse to work under the table and agree to low rates. The same lobbying should be directed to parents to pay legal wages on the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This whole obsession with verifiable, scientific data is sort of ridiculous. Parents don't need that. They ask their friends and neighbors, they google salary surveys, they come here...all sources that give them ranges for the average rate in their area. That is plenty of info to help them price their job. If they meet a nanny who wants more, they can decide to negotiate or move on to a new candidate. That's it.

Some so called verifiable data isn't going to require parents to pay a certain rate. It also won't, and shouldn't, change the present system. Market rates reflect the basic economic concept of supply and demand. Where there are few nannies, it is harder to employ one and you pay more. Where there are many nannies, including ones willing to work for very low wages or be paid under the table, nannies are easier to employ at a lower average rate. These are simple concepts.

Some government agencies do collect rate data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for one. If they pull this data from IRS data, that's about the closest you'll get to "verifiable". Of course, people can lie on their taxes. Also,this data still won't account for the people being paid under the table, whose presence in the employment market increases competition for nannies and drive down rates.

It's time to let go of this obsession with "verifiable" rate data. It's a meaningless and useless question.

If nannies want to raise market rates, energy should be spent encouraging nannies to refuse to work under the table and agree to low rates. The same lobbying should be directed to parents to pay legal wages on the books.

Bottom line is that most parents wanting cheap sitting, simply can't afford nanny rates. Therefore most of it will stay off the books, until the government starts going after the employers who are funding this underground economy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole obsession with verifiable, scientific data is sort of ridiculous. Parents don't need that. They ask their friends and neighbors, they google salary surveys, they come here...all sources that give them ranges for the average rate in their area. That is plenty of info to help them price their job. If they meet a nanny who wants more, they can decide to negotiate or move on to a new candidate. That's it.

Some so called verifiable data isn't going to require parents to pay a certain rate. It also won't, and shouldn't, change the present system. Market rates reflect the basic economic concept of supply and demand. Where there are few nannies, it is harder to employ one and you pay more. Where there are many nannies, including ones willing to work for very low wages or be paid under the table, nannies are easier to employ at a lower average rate. These are simple concepts.

Some government agencies do collect rate data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for one. If they pull this data from IRS data, that's about the closest you'll get to "verifiable". Of course, people can lie on their taxes. Also,this data still won't account for the people being paid under the table, whose presence in the employment market increases competition for nannies and drive down rates.

It's time to let go of this obsession with "verifiable" rate data. It's a meaningless and useless question.

If nannies want to raise market rates, energy should be spent encouraging nannies to refuse to work under the table and agree to low rates. The same lobbying should be directed to parents to pay legal wages on the books.

Bottom line is that most parents wanting cheap sitting, simply can't afford nanny rates. Therefore most of it will stay off the books, until the government starts going after the employers who are funding this underground economy.

In DC it is custom to pay on the books. we certainly did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of highly-skilled and successful people don't have degrees, lol. Don't you read?
By the same token, lots of college graduates have no job today, but do have a ton of debt.

You're unable to answer the question because you're full of it. If a nanny's going to demand high rates, she has to bring something special to the table

You are sadly mistaken. A sought-after professional need not justify anything to you. It's only the parents who wish to hire her, who understand her high value. You likely have no capacity to do so, especially if you believe that a degree automatically makes for an accomplished nanny.

Certain parents want certain skills, and will pay well for those skills.

[Anonymous]

Unfortunately for nannies, there are few special skills parents want to pay extra for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LOL yeah right OP.. if that was the case I quit my job and become a nanny. Many would. Keep dreaming and I'll keep paying my nanny $14/hr

Some kids are really lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some do, but they are outliers. Full-time baby nurses are a province of truly wealthy people. They are a minority among nanny employers and it's a very small market. Among the middle-class nanny employers, baby nurses are brought in - if at all - for a few weeks very early on, and that's about it.

This kind of flexible schedule works wonders for some professional caregivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some do, but they are outliers. Full-time baby nurses are a province of truly wealthy people. They are a minority among nanny employers and it's a very small market. Among the middle-class nanny employers, baby nurses are brought in - if at all - for a few weeks very early on, and that's about it.

This kind of flexible schedule works wonders for some professional caregivers.

It is, but the thing is, baby nurses aren't really nannies. They are a kind of a quasi-medical group of people who help the mom get settled with the newborn baby and show her the basics of infant care. So sure, baby nurses are great for a few weeks. I just don't think of them as nannies. They are a different breed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some do, but they are outliers. Full-time baby nurses are a province of truly wealthy people. They are a minority among nanny employers and it's a very small market. Among the middle-class nanny employers, baby nurses are brought in - if at all - for a few weeks very early on, and that's about it.

This kind of flexible schedule works wonders for some professional caregivers.

It is, but the thing is, baby nurses aren't really nannies. They are a kind of a quasi-medical group of people who help the mom get settled with the newborn baby and show her the basics of infant care. So sure, baby nurses are great for a few weeks. I just don't think of them as nannies. They are a different breed.

I know several baby nurses who also do nanny work, probably the same way you may know some "nannies" who will clean your house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure some do, but they are outliers. Full-time baby nurses are a province of truly wealthy people. They are a minority among nanny employers and it's a very small market. Among the middle-class nanny employers, baby nurses are brought in - if at all - for a few weeks very early on, and that's about it.

This kind of flexible schedule works wonders for some professional caregivers.

It is, but the thing is, baby nurses aren't really nannies. They are a kind of a quasi-medical group of people who help the mom get settled with the newborn baby and show her the basics of infant care. So sure, baby nurses are great for a few weeks. I just don't think of them as nannies. They are a different breed.

I know several baby nurses who also do nanny work, probably the same way you may know some "nannies" who will clean your house.

I'm sure they do, but I am also sure they don't do it at baby nurse rate.

[Anonymous]

You are not fooling anyone. I've never met a nanny making $30/hour. Nice try though!! Your lucky if you get $20/hour but even that's pushing it!