Yes that is the change. And it is indeed a huge jump.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:13 here - i don't disagree that a higher min wage is needed but as an employer i'm happy that i'll be done with employing someone and worrying about all of this by the time major changs phase in.

Which major change are you referring to?

Major increase in minimum wage. That is the change I believe PP is referring to and that is what started the discussion

Anonymous wrote:10:13 here - i don't disagree that a higher min wage is needed but as an employer i'm happy that i'll be done with employing someone and worrying about all of this by the time major changs phase in.

Which major change are you referring to?

10:13 here - i don't disagree that a higher min wage is needed but as an employer i'm happy that i'll be done with employing someone and worrying about all of this by the time major changs phase in.

"There are a ton of people who are federal employees most of whom make $100k or less. Quite obviously, even two parents making $100k are not going to be able to spend much more than a quarter of their income (and that's pre-tax, it's more like a third after tax!) in cash every year for child care. They're just not.

So I guess what I'm saying is that as nannies command higher rates, there will be less and less demand for the simple fact that people can't afford one. That's truly all I'm saying. "

+1 Or more non-rich families will be looking at the nanny share route to help address the cost. That will still cut down on jobs for nannies since you'll now how 1 doing the job of two. Costs of childcare centers will also rise though since those workers will earn more in particular. so it's not as if the higher nanny cost will be compared to a static daycare cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

+1000

I'm 15:27. Did you see where I said that I don't at all mean that nannies aren't worth the money? Clearly I said that no matter the value of a nanny or the dollar amount she commands, there are going to be points where the vast majority of people can't afford a nanny and thus, switch to a cheaper form of child care, of which there are many.

Are you saying that if you can't afford to spend $50,000 + in cash every year on child care, then you shouldn't have kids?

I disagree with her premise that if you can't afford to spend oodles of money on child care that you shouldn't have children, however I do agree that there is something to be said about the opposite view of your argument. Paying $39,523 for child care is a lot. Earning $39,523 a year, caring for the needs of a child, children, and even those of an entire family, working 8-10 hour days, in a job that requires you to give your heart and soul while you often receive little respect and appreciation from society and even your employers, is nothing. We are not getting rich caring for your children. I understand that there is a limit to what families can afford, but try to see it from the other side. It really is not that much. If you can't afford it, you should put your children in daycare, and at least those daycare workers will now make a little more than the shameful wages they are currently paid.

I very much appreciate your politeness - a rare find on this forum I want to say again though that my comment about the cost of a nanny had zero to do with a nanny's worth or value. It seems that posters are reading a sentiment that isn't there in what I posted. A good nanny may have a value of hundreds of thousands a year. But there is a simple fact that for the vast majority of parents, they are not going to physically be able to pay over a certain amount no matter how much they value their nanny.

In the DC area, there are a lot of people making a lot of money. Those people will be able to pay more. There are a ton of people who are federal employees most of whom make $100k or less. Quite obviously, even two parents making $100k are not going to be able to spend much more than a quarter of their income (and that's pre-tax, it's more like a third after tax!) in cash every year for child care. They're just not.

So I guess what I'm saying is that as nannies command higher rates, there will be less and less demand for the simple fact that people can't afford one. That's truly all I'm saying.

Anonymous wrote:You should just watch those institutional daycare workers for an hour or two. I did. It was about the most horrific thing I'd ever witnessed in person. My friend cried when we got out. Btw, it was one of your "top" places on K or L St. in downtown DC. Lawyer parents pay $2,000.+ per month to put their babies in that misery. There's another one opening in Georgetown. Those poor little rich children.

Daycare AKA kiddie prisons

You should just watch those institutional daycare workers for an hour or two. I did. It was about the most horrific thing I'd ever witnessed in person. My friend cried when we got out. Btw, it was one of your "top" places on K or L St. in downtown DC. Lawyer parents pay $2,000.+ per month to put their babies in that misery. There's another one opening in Georgetown. Those poor little rich children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

+1000

I'm 15:27. Did you see where I said that I don't at all mean that nannies aren't worth the money? Clearly I said that no matter the value of a nanny or the dollar amount she commands, there are going to be points where the vast majority of people can't afford a nanny and thus, switch to a cheaper form of child care, of which there are many.

Are you saying that if you can't afford to spend $50,000 + in cash every year on child care, then you shouldn't have kids?

I disagree with her premise that if you can't afford to spend oodles of money on child care that you shouldn't have children, however I do agree that there is something to be said about the opposite view of your argument. Paying $39,523 for child care is a lot. Earning $39,523 a year, caring for the needs of a child, children, and even those of an entire family, working 8-10 hour days, in a job that requires you to give your heart and soul while you often receive little respect and appreciation from society and even your employers, is nothing. We are not getting rich caring for your children. I understand that there is a limit to what families can afford, but try to see it from the other side. It really is not that much. If you can't afford it, you should put your children in daycare, and at least those daycare workers will now make a little more than the shameful wages they are currently paid.

Anonymous wrote:Because nannies, atleast most, go into the nanny profession because it's easy and doesn't require an education so that's why they will stay in the profession regardless cause where else will they go? RETAILLL!

You are ignorant. Firstly, being a nanny, if done properly, is like being a substitute patent, which is NOT easy. Secondly, in an area like the DMV, where there are a huge concentration of college educated nannies 9 and parents who require them), your statement only confirms your ignorant.

1) it's $11.50
2) it doesn't reach $11.50 for another 4 years so just simmer down

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt it. Nannies don't work for companies where laws are enforced. An individual can pay whatever they want

You're an idiot if you think those laws can't be enforced. That's what a little thing called the labor department, and the wage and hour enforcement board are for. An individual can pay whatever they want, but you won't see that so much in this area where people won't be willing to risk their clearances and they're reputation.

What's with the name calling? I'm not saying it can't be enforced, I'm saying I doubt it will be. Whether its right or not, employers pay their nannies whatever they choose to. There are plenty of nannies who work for less than minimum wage right now. I don't see how the new higher minimum wage will change that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

+1000

I'm 15:27. Did you see where I said that I don't at all mean that nannies aren't worth the money? Clearly I said that no matter the value of a nanny or the dollar amount she commands, there are going to be points where the vast majority of people can't afford a nanny and thus, switch to a cheaper form of child care, of which there are many.

Are you saying that if you can't afford to spend $50,000 + in cash every year on child care, then you shouldn't have kids?

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

Wow you're stupid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If eventually the nannies making minimum wage, or near minimum wage must be paid 12.50, I think it will either drive up rates some, or those nannies won't be able to compete for nanny jobs, or we'll see more jobs go under the table, which is unfortunate.

I agree that 11:23 is a total idiot.

Not 11:23 but you and the PP above you are both idiots. Sockpuppeting!