nannydebsays wrote:No, 15:33, I am trying to say that nanny raises are never cut and dried, since families all have different numbers and ages of kids, as well as different childcare needs.

I am also attempting to tactfully suggest to the OP that it's better to offer a slight bit more than what a PP suggested doing. Using a mathematical formula to determine exactly how many hours nanny will have each child is, IMO, pretty foolish, unless, as I said, there is NO WAY that nanny would EVER have more work to do than was mathematically determined.

Nannies know when they are being given minimal raises despite their having to exert maximum effort. If a family simply cannot afford to pay their nanny a reasonable rate, they need to examine other childcare options. If a family simply wishes to minimize what they pay their nanny because they feel they don't need to offer money equal to the job being done, then they need to make other childcare choices.

If the PP above could truly not afford to give a $2 per hour raise for all hours worked in a week, then she did the best she could, and her nanny can choose to stay or go. But if the PP could easily afford to give, say, a $100 ($2 x 50 hours) raise, and simply decided that she didn't feel like the work involved with the new baby was worth that much, even with older kids in school who may be home more often than her formula indicated, and chose to give $40 then she may be seeking new childcare.

Parents/employers don't seem to like to hear this, but nannies KNOW what you spend on yourselves/your house/your kids. Personally, I don't calculate my raise amounts based on what I see employers spending, but I am in the minority. Most nannies, faced with a minimal raise for a new baby and seeing huge expenditures on new electronics/home renovations/clothes, will decide their employers are cheap, and will leave for a better paying job.

That's just reality.

nannydebsays wrote:13:17, YOU know that's the economic reality, and *I* know it as well. But many nannies (and I'm going to sound snobbish here, but oh well...) don't look at economic realities. They can be shortsighted when it comes to wages, and if a family that they work for is paying $14/hour for 2 kids, and adds a 3rd child for $40 more per week, that nanny will choose to leave on the chance she can find work with either equal or better pay and fewer kids to care for.

Is it smart to job hop like that? No. Is it economically savvy? No. Does it still happen? Yes.

Does it put parents into a bind when they have to replace nanny after nanny after nanny because the wage the parents offer doesn't fit what the nanny feels the job is truly worth? Yes.

As a "seasoned" nanny, my advice to parents is to offer generous wage increases that fit into your budget, IF you have a nanny who you want to keep for the foreseeable future. If you aren't crazy about your nanny but don't really want to fire her, then offering low-ball raises will eventually solve your problem and force you into the hiring process when your nanny quits.

Anonymous wrote:NP here and I can see what nannydeb is saying. I think what you have to ask yourself OP is, with whatever raise you decide to offer (or don't offer as a pp suggested) what is the likelihood of your nanny finding an equal/better paying job with equal/less responsibilities? The greater this likelihood the greater chance you would lose your nanny. This is why I do not suggest offering no raise at all. Your nanny found a job with you at this rate. If you add another baby into the mix with no raise, chances are she CAN and WILL find a job with equal/more pay with less work.