Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
-The parent(s) work odd or unpredictable hours
-The job requires exceptionally long/late hours
-They have no family or close friends nearby and want someone available in case of emergencies or unforeseen needs
-They desire a long term, familial relationship with the caregiver of their children
-They have special/high needs children and need the extra hands
-They have money to burn and like having help at their fingertips
If the only reason a family wants a live-in is to save money, they really should look at other options, because as you said it is inconvenient inviting someone into your home if you don't truly want them there, but its no walk in the park for the nanny either. She shouldn't be paying for your inconvenience any more than you should pay for hers.
I'm the one PP you're responding to, and some of these make sense. But I think the situations are what increase the rate rather than it being normally comparable for a live-in rate to equal a live-out rate. I don't think having a live-in automatically means that you'll have someone who is willing to work flexible or weird hours and who is happy to pitch in any time you have an emergency or help when off-duty. It doesn't even necessarily mean that it will be someone who hangs around with your family after hours and develops a familial relationship.
I completely agree that you'll be paying a higher rate for someone who is willing to be an extra pair of hands pretty much 24/7 simply because she lives there. I can see that person being paid a higher rate even than a live-out. But if you're talking a standard nanny arrangement with set hours and no expectation of helping when off duty, then I don't see why that would command a higher rate to live-in than to live-out.
I'm the PP that made the list. I think if you set up the job to truly be no different than that of a live out, with the exception being that she lives there, then I see your point. However, I have worked my share of live-in jobs and it is never that way in reality. Its too easy to cross those boundaries sometimes, and its really hard for the nanny to say no. I loved the families that I worked for, and they were generally respectful of my time/space but there were plenty of times when something unexpected came up and my living in the basement made me the first line of defense. I did unscheduled emergency pickups from preschool, cared for sick kids on my day off, was handed the baby monitor so mom could run out quickly and I can't very well say no if she sees me lounging on the sofa (of course I could, but that breeds more bitterness than its worth). I accept a very slight decrease in my rates for a live-in position, but I am well aware that when I accept the job, my space is not really my space, and my time is not really my time. That is what you're paying for, and if that's not what you want, a live-in isn't really what you need.
Thanks for clarifying, PP. I've enjoyed this exchange and think it's helpful. We've had a live-in and au pairs and treated them just like we would have a live-out in terms of respecting their time. I personally think it's incredibly necessary to be respectful of a live-in's off-time, assuming you haven't hired them on the condition that they are flexible. I agree with you that if you expect any nanny to be flexible with her on-duty time, that that would come with a commensurate rate increase, regardless of whether she's live-in or live-out.
If we're just talking straight live-in versus live-out rate with the same duties and expectations, I still maintain that most MBs will want to offer a lower rate. Particularly if food is included. With all of our live-in situations, we experienced quite an increase in utilities, food costs, damage to the house, increase in noise and visitors, etc. So I personally couldn't see paying the same rate for a live-in as live-out given that we don't require ours to be flexible or to help out when off-duty.