As PP said, there will always be applicants for any nanny job at any level of pay. The nanny who sets her rate high has to be prepared to show she is worth that rate, and the parents need to be willing to pay that rate. It's not too complex.

And if more nannies refused to work for less than $10/hour, parents might eventually realize they can't get even less-than-acceptable nanny care for that amount, and rates might then rise across the board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For twins? I think not.

Maybe you wouldn't consider it but lots of other people would. Which is fine - it's a free market.

Lots of parents still want to pay very low wages off the books, even if they're rich.

The endless tedium of this debate is ridiculous. You just won't accept that employers can hire qualified citizens, pay legally, have terrific hiring/employment experiences, and be offering competitive attractive rates that are well within the $15-20 range, usually on the lower end.

I get that you don't like it, but it is very much the reality. I had 47 applicants for a nanny position I filled this winter. 47. Something like 30 of those met the minimum requirements stated in the ad which were citizenship/legal work status, fluency in English, prior experience with the age group of my kids, able to drive. Several were referrals from other families in my neighborhood (close in Montgomery County.)

I advertised the position at $850/week (just over $15/hr for 40 hrs, 10 hours at overtime rates), plus healthcare premium reimbursement up to $150/mth, 2 weeks vacation (1 my choosing, 1 theirs, with ability to bank and use up to 3 wks in one year), 5 sick days, and 10 paid holidays. The job is 50 hrs/week caring for preschooler twins, inclusive of 3 meals a day, their laundry, driving them around, etc...

I had the wonderful problem of being overwhelmed w/ great candidates.

Are there things a $20/hr nanny might offer or do? Maybe. Did I see any need to go higher in my offers given the quality of candidates I met? Nope.

You may not like what the market rates are, but that is neither the employer's fault or responsibility. There are lots of terrific people out there for whom an annual salary of $40-50k is very attractive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For twins? I think not.

Maybe you wouldn't consider it but lots of other people would. Which is fine - it's a free market.

Lots of parents still want to pay very low wages off the books, even if they're rich.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For twins? I think not.

Maybe you wouldn't consider it but lots of other people would. Which is fine - it's a free market.

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For twins? I think not.

Anonymous wrote:Your rate sounds about right.

Hopefully there is no housecleaning requested since caring for two infants is a huge undertaking.

No, I disagree.

Your rate sounds about right.

Hopefully there is no housecleaning requested since caring for two infants is a huge undertaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For your low cost sitters, you might get that for only ONE child. Twin babies are a TON of work!

OP will get tons of qualified applicants at that rate.

Twin babies are a fair amount of work, sure. But honestly - twin toddlers and preschoolers are more work. If you hire a nanny who really loves babies then twins aren't that hard.

One can only wonder what you consider to be "qualified."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For your low cost sitters, you might get that for only ONE child. Twin babies are a TON of work!

OP will get tons of qualified applicants at that rate.

Twin babies are a fair amount of work, sure. But honestly - twin toddlers and preschoolers are more work. If you hire a nanny who really loves babies then twins aren't that hard.

Anonymous wrote:$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

For your low cost sitters, you might get that for only ONE child. Twin babies are a TON of work!

Hugely variable OP. I have twins, live in Montgomery County, and have only paid $18/hr for short term, fill-in nanny care through an agency.

Our long term nanny who started w/ us when our babies were 3 1/2 months old is a citizen, we were her third set of twins, worked 50 hrs a week, and did not have a college degree or any certifications (other than CPR). She started at an average rate of less than $15 and ended (after 3 years) w/ an average rate of slightly more than $16/hr. (This is based on a base rate for 40 hours, and overtime rates for 10 hrs - guaranteed weekly in a salaried amount. Paid legally. Additional benefits of healthcare cost reimbursement, vacation and sick leave, etc...)

$17-19/hour for the first 40 hours, time and a half for the remaining five hours.

It all depends on what you want. Legal or off the books? Experience with twins? Infant certified? College degree?

If you have infant twin experience, at least $25/hr.
One child might be $18/hr, which would be low.

What is the going rate for twins three months old in Springfield? Full time 45 hours a week. 18 a hour?