Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, what you're describing sounds fine, its just the language that makes it sound bad. You don't charge your live in "rent" but you do lower her rate a reasonable amount. $500/month sounds like a fair middle ground between the market rate for the space, and the inconvenience of living with your employer. The way you would factor in the "rent" would be to lower her hourly rate a few dollars and advertise the position as a live-in position at that rate. Make no mention of paying rent. So in your case, you're offering $16-18/hour and want $500 for rent. For a 40 hour work week, you'd lower the hourly rate about $3, so offer your position at the $13-$15/hour range. This would be a VERY attractive offer if the space is nice. Good luck!
Have any friends who might be interested? Maybe even you would consider this VERY attractive offer.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I worked for four different families as a live-in nanny and have never been asked to pay rent. $16 an hour is a good starting rate for an experienced live-in nanny. If you don't mind someone less experienced, you can pay her less an hour. But no, you do not charge for rent.
OP, $16 an hour can be a good starting rate for an experienced live-OUT nanny. There is a lot of disagreement on this board about whether or not you should offer a lower amount to a live-in as compared to a live-out. There are some very vocal nannies who feel that the rate should be the same for two reasons: (1) to make the offer more attractive to a nanny who is living with her boss and sharing public spaces in the house; and (2) because the employer wants a live-in for "flexibility" reasons (someone can clarify what they mean by that because I've never understood what that means as a benefit compared to live-out nannies).
Personally, from an employer perspective, anyone who I've ever known to be looking for a live-in nanny sees the major benefit as being hourly rate savings as compared to a live-out. I'm sure they are out there, but it seems like most employers would prefer a live-out, but need/want to save money and so are looking for a live-in. These employers see it as more of an inconvenience to live with someone, but that the savings would be worth it.
Are there any employers out there who would be happy to pay a live-in nanny the same rate as a live-out? I haven't heard from this person yet on what the major benefits of a live-in nanny are that make up for the fact that not only are you paying someone the same rate, but also providing living space.
Also, if you've had au pairs, you probably want to do some looking into on what will be different. Do you pay for phone, car, food for a live-in like you would for an au pair? Does the live-in want to be like a member of the family or do they want to be left alone when off duty? You probably lose the flexibility in the schedule that you've had with the au pair too. Things to consider.
Anonymous wrote:OP, what you're describing sounds fine, its just the language that makes it sound bad. You don't charge your live in "rent" but you do lower her rate a reasonable amount. $500/month sounds like a fair middle ground between the market rate for the space, and the inconvenience of living with your employer. The way you would factor in the "rent" would be to lower her hourly rate a few dollars and advertise the position as a live-in position at that rate. Make no mention of paying rent. So in your case, you're offering $16-18/hour and want $500 for rent. For a 40 hour work week, you'd lower the hourly rate about $3, so offer your position at the $13-$15/hour range. This would be a VERY attractive offer if the space is nice. Good luck!
Anonymous wrote:I worked for four different families as a live-in nanny and have never been asked to pay rent. $16 an hour is a good starting rate for an experienced live-in nanny. If you don't mind someone less experienced, you can pay her less an hour. But no, you do not charge for rent.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm being woefully naive, but $500 is pretty cheap rent in this area, and the nanny can either pay $500 out of her $16/hr and live-in or $1000+ out of her $16/hr and live elsewhere. OP had a valid question, and good on her for asking and not just assuming.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A live-in doesn't pay rent. Maybe you can get a warm body at a reduced hourly rate if she has nowhere to live.
Ah yes, the warm body poster again. OP has never had a live-in and was asking for advice because she has no idea what to pay. If you don't think what she is suggesting is good how about some helpful advice instead of a snarky comment? If you think nannies are underpaid your nasty comments aren't helping the situation.
OP, I'm sorry, I've never had a live-in so I'm not sure how it works either. I have one friend who lives in Bethesda who has a live-in for 3 children, 5 and under, and she pays $16/hr but that's all I can tell you.
Do you suppose she pays rent out of her 16/hr?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:A live-in doesn't pay rent. Maybe you can get a warm body at a reduced hourly rate if she has nowhere to live.
Ah yes, the warm body poster again. OP has never had a live-in and was asking for advice because she has no idea what to pay. If you don't think what she is suggesting is good how about some helpful advice instead of a snarky comment? If you think nannies are underpaid your nasty comments aren't helping the situation.
OP, I'm sorry, I've never had a live-in so I'm not sure how it works either. I have one friend who lives in Bethesda who has a live-in for 3 children, 5 and under, and she pays $16/hr but that's all I can tell you.
Anonymous wrote:A live-in doesn't pay rent. Maybe you can get a warm body at a reduced hourly rate if she has nowhere to live.