Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

Two children ARE double the work of one child.
Hint: Can you add 1 + 1 = 2 ?

No it isn't because when the second one is added, you do less for each child. Unless you can clone yourself and give your 100% undivided attention to each child at the same time, you aren't doing the same amount of work for EACH child. You are splitting yourself so each child gets less than they would have if they were your only charge.

Speak for yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

Two children ARE double the work of one child.
Hint: Can you add 1 + 1 = 2 ?

No it isn't because when the second one is added, you do less for each child. Unless you can clone yourself and give your 100% undivided attention to each child at the same time, you aren't doing the same amount of work for EACH child. You are splitting yourself so each child gets less than they would have if they were your only charge.

Personally, I feel like it's not double, but it's certainly not the same workload. There is more laundry (sometimes more than double, as a toddler's number of loads is drastically lower than an infant's), there's double for food prep (each child is eating something different and on a different schedule), and there's two children clamoring for my attention. On the other hand, no, I can't clone myself, but I try the best I can to give each child the attention they would get if they were the only child. For me, that means trying to stagger sleeping so that each child gets one-on-one attention at least once during the day. It also means using what little nap time overlaps to do crazy fast laundry, food prep and nursery tidying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

Two children ARE double the work of one child.
Hint: Can you add 1 + 1 = 2 ?

No it isn't because when the second one is added, you do less for each child. Unless you can clone yourself and give your 100% undivided attention to each child at the same time, you aren't doing the same amount of work for EACH child. You are splitting yourself so each child gets less than they would have if they were your only charge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

Two children ARE double the work of one child.
Hint: Can you add 1 + 1 = 2 ?

Anonymous wrote:For heaven's sake, this job is already paying at top dollar rates for multiple children, let alone for just one.

OP, I fully expect that given the history of your nanny negotiating for an increase on an already above market rate, that he/she will press you for more. But the truth is that you are paying at the absolute top of the market already (assuming you're in the DC area and not Manhattan) so $1/hr is perfectly reasonable.

If your current nanny balks then you should seriously consider looking for a replacement. You would be FLOODED with highly qualified applicants at the hourly rates you are offering (and at even less than those rates. You could offer $20/hr and be extremely attractive as an employer.)

Yes.

Anonymous wrote:

If "the market" even HAD good nannies, at ANY rate,
parents wouldn't be complaining so much.

A $23/hr. rate isn't that great at all. People who care for babies earn more than that for just one.

If you are right and there are no good nannies in the market, then it doesn't matter how much she offers.

Some people who care for babies earn more than $23/hr. There are a million times more people who don't. She doesn't have to hire from the miniscule pool of $23/hr when there are hordes of nannies who would gladly work with two kids for $20/hr - legal, experienced, well-referenced nannies.

If "the market" even HAD good nannies, at ANY rate,
parents wouldn't be complaining so much.

A $23/hr. rate isn't that great at all. People who care for babies earn more than that for just one.

For heaven's sake, this job is already paying at top dollar rates for multiple children, let alone for just one.

OP, I fully expect that given the history of your nanny negotiating for an increase on an already above market rate, that he/she will press you for more. But the truth is that you are paying at the absolute top of the market already (assuming you're in the DC area and not Manhattan) so $1/hr is perfectly reasonable.

If your current nanny balks then you should seriously consider looking for a replacement. You would be FLOODED with highly qualified applicants at the hourly rates you are offering (and at even less than those rates. You could offer $20/hr and be extremely attractive as an employer.)

The highest paid secretary at my firm is not the best. Being highly paid doesn't mean you're good at your job. It means you're good at identifying and exploiting market inefficiencies.

At any rate since one is starting preschool a $1 raise seems very fair.

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

It's not double the work.

And

There's plenty of nannies who would jump at the gig that pays $21/hr for two kids. Literally dozens. Experienced, legal, glowingly referenced, with cherries on top.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

So says she who's never done it professionally. Lol.

Anonymous wrote:Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

it isnt double the work and you are insane

Would you want to double the work for $1 more an hour? I do not think that's reasonable. You were already at $21, which is high for one child. I would add at least $3 for the new baby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I earn $25/hr for one child. Two would be at least $30/hr.

For your nanny, it depends what she thinks she can earn elsewhere.

I am sure there is a long line of employers looking to pay $30/hr their nanny

Not at all. Only those who want and can afford the best.

It's OK not to have "the best" nanny. Plenty of good fish outside that little puddle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I earn $25/hr for one child. Two would be at least $30/hr.

For your nanny, it depends what she thinks she can earn elsewhere.

I am sure there is a long line of employers looking to pay $30/hr their nanny

Not at all. Only those who want and can afford the best.