Stop being cheap and just stay home. For what you want to pay you won’t find a nanny and you’re too picky for a share and don’t even want to offer a decent wage with that. Please just stay home with your children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

So, unfortunately $22 an hour year round, or $25 during the school year, is past the point where I break even. I'd love to keep my job, but I'm not in a position to spend more on childcare than I earn in order to do so.

If that's really what the market says, that I need to pay $25 an hour for one kid, then I won't get a nanny.

$18-20 is reasonable for one child but with 4 kids $25 is more reasonable.

Are you saying that $20 an hour, with an extra $5 per hour if the other kids are home, is reasonable? I could do that for 10 months, not for 12.

If you were hiring year-round, that rate would work. Above you were told that a 10 month contract would be for $22-25/1 child and $25-28/2-4 kids.

Honestly, just look for a share. Teachers can’t afford their own nannies, but shares are definitely doable.

Above was one person's opinion, it was unclear to me whether you were agreeing with that person, or disagreeing, so I followed up.

Anonymous wrote:A share that involves only your infant and another infant is a good possibility. However, you would need multiple other childcare arrangements for your 3 older children. The nanny could not be expected to have any responsibility for them at all.

If you could afford $15/hour FT year round plus benefits, and found a share family (also paying $15/hour FT year round) that clicked well with you and the nanny, would that work?

To be honest, no. If you look at my calculations above, $17 an hour without additional childcare costs for my other kids is about where I break even financially. $15 with additional childcare costs for the other 3, plus extra gas to drop off and pick up at a nanny share, wouldn't be much different

I'd love to hold on to my job, because I enjoy it, but I'm only going to do so if it doesn't negatively impact my kids. If I'm not making any money, and I'm adding morning and afternoon drop offs, and my infant doesn't get the advantages of a gentle hand off and 1:1 attention, and sleeping in his/her own bed, I don't see how I can justify that.

A share that involves only your infant and another infant is a good possibility. However, you would need multiple other childcare arrangements for your 3 older children. The nanny could not be expected to have any responsibility for them at all.

If you could afford $15/hour FT year round plus benefits, and found a share family (also paying $15/hour FT year round) that clicked well with you and the nanny, would that work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

So, unfortunately $22 an hour year round, or $25 during the school year, is past the point where I break even. I'd love to keep my job, but I'm not in a position to spend more on childcare than I earn in order to do so.

If that's really what the market says, that I need to pay $25 an hour for one kid, then I won't get a nanny.

$18-20 is reasonable for one child but with 4 kids $25 is more reasonable.

Are you saying that $20 an hour, with an extra $5 per hour if the other kids are home, is reasonable? I could do that for 10 months, not for 12.

If you were hiring year-round, that rate would work. Above you were told that a 10 month contract would be for $22-25/1 child and $25-28/2-4 kids.

Honestly, just look for a share. Teachers can’t afford their own nannies, but shares are definitely doable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

So, unfortunately $22 an hour year round, or $25 during the school year, is past the point where I break even. I'd love to keep my job, but I'm not in a position to spend more on childcare than I earn in order to do so.

If that's really what the market says, that I need to pay $25 an hour for one kid, then I won't get a nanny.

$18-20 is reasonable for one child but with 4 kids $25 is more reasonable.

Are you saying that $20 an hour, with an extra $5 per hour if the other kids are home, is reasonable? I could do that for 10 months, not for 12.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure that you wouldn't still want the nanny over the summer? With 4 kids--and one needs to be driven to/from camp, another wants to go to the pool with their friend, the baby needs to stay home and nap, etc. it would be helpful to have an additional adult around.

I'm pretty sure. To be honest, the question I'm figuring out is whether financially we'll come out ahead with a nanny, vs quitting my job. For me to do what I think is ethical, I think it's going to be pretty close, and summer would definitely put us over the edge.

Yes, it might be helpful to have another adult, but it's not financially reasonable.

With 4 kids you are better off quitting as a teacher. You will be hard pressed to find someone willing to work a teachers schedule without premium pay. Also, 4 kids is a lot with a huge age range. You'd probably be looking at $25 an hour for 4 kids plus benefits like health insurance and sick leave. By the time you get a salary, pay taxes, take out commuting and other expenses you are really only working because you enjoy it vs salary. Remember you pay her post tax so if you make $60 a year and take home $40K with taxes, most of that or all will go to the nanny.

I'm not sure what ethics has to do with it. Its ok to SAH with 4 young kids. How is that not ethical?

No, I meant that I don't feel ethical asking someone to go without health insurance, for example, and that 12 months at what I consider a living wage with health insurance would be more than I make. So, the ethical choice is to quit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

So, unfortunately $22 an hour year round, or $25 during the school year, is past the point where I break even. I'd love to keep my job, but I'm not in a position to spend more on childcare than I earn in order to do so.

If that's really what the market says, that I need to pay $25 an hour for one kid, then I won't get a nanny.

$18-20 is reasonable for one child but with 4 kids $25 is more reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure that you wouldn't still want the nanny over the summer? With 4 kids--and one needs to be driven to/from camp, another wants to go to the pool with their friend, the baby needs to stay home and nap, etc. it would be helpful to have an additional adult around.

I'm pretty sure. To be honest, the question I'm figuring out is whether financially we'll come out ahead with a nanny, vs quitting my job. For me to do what I think is ethical, I think it's going to be pretty close, and summer would definitely put us over the edge.

Yes, it might be helpful to have another adult, but it's not financially reasonable.

With 4 kids you are better off quitting as a teacher. You will be hard pressed to find someone willing to work a teachers schedule without premium pay. Also, 4 kids is a lot with a huge age range. You'd probably be looking at $25 an hour for 4 kids plus benefits like health insurance and sick leave. By the time you get a salary, pay taxes, take out commuting and other expenses you are really only working because you enjoy it vs salary. Remember you pay her post tax so if you make $60 a year and take home $40K with taxes, most of that or all will go to the nanny.

I'm not sure what ethics has to do with it. Its ok to SAH with 4 young kids. How is that not ethical?

Anonymous wrote:So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

So, unfortunately $22 an hour year round, or $25 during the school year, is past the point where I break even. I'd love to keep my job, but I'm not in a position to spend more on childcare than I earn in order to do so.

If that's really what the market says, that I need to pay $25 an hour for one kid, then I won't get a nanny.

So doing the math - 25/hour * 40 is 1000 a week plus 224 for the one day a month that is all kids (plus there are bound to be days when a kid is sniffles but not sick sick and so you don't stay home but the nanny is in charge of the baby and the sniffly kid so you have to pay the extended rate or schools do what they have been saying and go virtual on snow days so you are working all day nanny needs to help other kids) but even at your calculations, it would be closer to 42,000 for 10 months at those rates.

It would be nominally more expensive to have a year round nanny and infinitely easier to find someone. You could pay 22 an hour always - sometimes the nanny only has one kid and sometimes all kids for the entire year at 45,000.

Also, there are other costs - taxes, unemployment insurance, workers comp in some states. So there is nanny pay plus some additional expenses to factor in, just fyi

No I am saying you will need to pay closer to 25/ hour for the baby and then 28/ hour for when the big kids are in session to get someone who wants only a 10 month job.

Although it feels like it would be easy to find someone who would love summers off, but it is stressful to have an employment gap and bills. Applying for jobs is hard annoying and that person would either need to take off from work or intervirw after a full day - and that is work. and you would be less likely to take a week of vacation over the summer if you just started a new 2 month only job, but lots of people like to travel (under normal conditions) over the summer.

So, it is a hassle to take your job, even if there is the chance to return in the fall compared to just a "regular" nanny job. So, you need to make it more appealing and pay more.

Anonymous wrote:In my experience, wanting something unique (part time, split schedule, no summers....) Means paying a higher rate for the time you use because your pool of applicants is smaller and you need to make it worth their while. So mathematically and sanity wise you might be better off with a year round position with a lower hourly rate.

Most people doing what you do or in a share have a "normal" rate for what nanny will.mostly be doing and then an additional rate. So 19/hour for just the baby and then 22 hour for all the kids.

OK, I'm going to get all geeky,

Let's say I do it the way I was thinking, $20 an hour for 10 months of 40 hour weeks, plus an extra $3 per hour for each of the other kids, for an average of 1 day a month, and a 25% bonus if the nanny returns in the fall.

That's $36,922.50 for the year, plus my share of taxes, and whatever we agree about insurance (I'll probably ask about that in a minute).

Now, let's say I decide to pay the same amount of money for a full year. That's $17.70 an hour.

Are you saying that you think I'll get better candidates for $17.70 an hour, with the expectation that they work 12 months, and sometimes have 4 kids since my older kids are home all summer, than I would for the original plan which lets the nanny have summers off to watch their own kids, or get a summer camp or nanny job and earn some extra money, or lie by the pool every day?

I guess the other thing I could do is pay "teacher style", and withhold a portion of every pay check and just pay them over the summer without asking them to come in. I'm not sure that's legal though, although I assume it is when my employer does it to me.

In my experience, wanting something unique (part time, split schedule, no summers....) Means paying a higher rate for the time you use because your pool of applicants is smaller and you need to make it worth their while. So mathematically and sanity wise you might be better off with a year round position with a lower hourly rate.

Most people doing what you do or in a share have a "normal" rate for what nanny will.mostly be doing and then an additional rate. So 19/hour for just the baby and then 22 hour for all the kids.

Anonymous wrote:Are you sure that you wouldn't still want the nanny over the summer? With 4 kids--and one needs to be driven to/from camp, another wants to go to the pool with their friend, the baby needs to stay home and nap, etc. it would be helpful to have an additional adult around.

I'm pretty sure. To be honest, the question I'm figuring out is whether financially we'll come out ahead with a nanny, vs quitting my job. For me to do what I think is ethical, I think it's going to be pretty close, and summer would definitely put us over the edge.

Yes, it might be helpful to have another adult, but it's not financially reasonable.