Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, how would you address issues around someone who works in a daycare center vs. someone who is a nanny?

The nanny will typically have a significantly higher hourly rate and likely have competitive benefits.

The daycare worker is federally subject to background investigations, fingerprint check, etc... (as is anyone working with children).

How do you propose to answer your questions or set standards for a profession where the scope of responsibilities can be so broad and the range of compensation is equally broad? Then factor in range of education and experience, geographic location, economic fluctuations, etc...

I just don't see how your post is productive or useful, beyond filling your day.

If you don't find my post useful, feel free to exit and carry on with all the other super helpful and important threads. I think there's one talking about how to get your nanny to cook and clean your house that you might enjoy.

Anonymous wrote:OP, how would you address issues around someone who works in a daycare center vs. someone who is a nanny?

The nanny will typically have a significantly higher hourly rate and likely have competitive benefits.

The daycare worker is federally subject to background investigations, fingerprint check, etc... (as is anyone working with children).

How do you propose to answer your questions or set standards for a profession where the scope of responsibilities can be so broad and the range of compensation is equally broad? Then factor in range of education and experience, geographic location, economic fluctuations, etc...

I just don't see how your post is productive or useful, beyond filling your day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

No, the market sets the price. The salon charges what the market will bear. Same with nannying, it's just more direct.

Moreover, if you believe it's every person's duty to pay what is "fair" - you are simply making an excuse not to pay your nail person a decent wage by saying, "well, the business set the price. I just followed it."

It's not that black and white. Some retail stores pay minimum wage or just barely more. Others pay much better wages, and offer their employees benefits. A business can choose to direct a grater share of its profits to paying it's employees. I'm not paying the nail person's wage. That's the difference between being a consumer vs. an employer. When you hire a nanny you become an employer, like it or not. I don't know why you keep trying to ignore the facts of the point you're trying to make. Purchasing a service from a business is not the same as setting the wage of your employee.

Anonymous wrote:

You're making a lot of assumptions about me. I don't take issue with childcare subsidies, and would definitely support them. I think childcare workers deserve to make a decent living, and I think our society and our government investing in the industry would improve the quality for everyone involved. That would require everyone, not just nannies, and not just parents, but everyone to start looking at early education and care as a worthwhile investment for the future of the country.

I don't think that the cause you bring up have to be one or the other. In fact I think they go hand in hand. We need to wake up and start valuing this work, then you can get your subsidy, the workers can be paid decently, and the industry will attract a higher caliber workforce overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

No, the market sets the price. The salon charges what the market will bear. Same with nannying, it's just more direct.

Moreover, if you believe it's every person's duty to pay what is "fair" - you are simply making an excuse not to pay your nail person a decent wage by saying, "well, the business set the price. I just followed it."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.

Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?

Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?

Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?

To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.

Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?

I think there's a big difference between paying more than you're charge for something vs. being the employer that sets the actual salary. I do try to vote with my wallet and spend money at business that I know treat their eworkyees well, and avoid those that don't, even if it means playing more for the product or service. I also support unions that fight for the best possible treatment for those professions that you mentioned, as well as legislation that will better protect childcare workers. Instead of saying life is unfair and contributing to the issues, I do my damnedest to be a part of the solution.

You are buying a service one way or the other. How much extra do you pay your nail salon tech?

Let's turn this around the other way. How much do you think nannies should get paid, across the board? What is your proposal?

You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

So...what's your point? What are you trying to achieve in the end? What do you want?

You need to also recognize that while you want protections and benefits (presumably from the law) you should be pushing for more child care subsidies to help parents pay for care. There's no way most parents can pay a nanny $60,000 or whatever you think they should be paid. That's an entire salary of before tax income. So push all you want for nanny protection, but you will get a LOT farther pushing for federal child care subsidies (where you get a lot more parents on board.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

Anonymous wrote:


You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.

Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?

Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?

Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?

To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.

Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?

I think there's a big difference between paying more than you're charge for something vs. being the employer that sets the actual salary. I do try to vote with my wallet and spend money at business that I know treat their employees well, and avoid those that don't, even if it means playing more for the product or service. I also support unions that fight for the best possible treatment for those professions that you mentioned, as well as legislation that will better protect childcare workers. Instead of saying life is unfair and contributing to the issues, I do my damnedest to be a part of the solution.

You are buying a service one way or the other. How much extra do you pay your nail salon tech?

Let's turn this around the other way. How much do you think nannies should get paid, across the board? What is your proposal?

You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.

Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?

Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?

Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?

To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.

Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?

I think there's a big difference between paying more than you're charge for something vs. being the employer that sets the actual salary. I do try to vote with my wallet and spend money at business that I know treat their employees well, and avoid those that don't, even if it means playing more for the product or service. I also support unions that fight for the best possible treatment for those professions that you mentioned, as well as legislation that will better protect childcare workers. Instead of saying life is unfair and contributing to the issues, I do my damnedest to be a part of the solution.

You are buying a service one way or the other. How much extra do you pay your nail salon tech?

Let's turn this around the other way. How much do you think nannies should get paid, across the board? What is your proposal?