Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Not sure. I’m not hiring a nanny to raise my child. I do that. A nanny is just to look after them and keep them out of trouble.

Perhaps you aren’t used to living in a city... if your means if transportaiton is walking then if you’re walking with a toddler it will takes way too long to get anywhere. Hence the scooter or stroller.

Nope. Nanny here. Once a child is capable of walking, we walk, and I plan to carry if/when they are tired, and I budget time accordingly. When they are babied in one way (stroller), they don’t understand as easily that they need to not be babied in other ways (potty training and talking correctly).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Not sure. I’m not hiring a nanny to raise my child. I do that. A nanny is just to look after them and keep them out of trouble.

Perhaps you aren’t used to living in a city... if your means if transportaiton is walking then if you’re walking with a toddler it will takes way too long to get anywhere. Hence the scooter or stroller.

I think you may be confused. A babysitter is just a warm body, keeping you kid alive and out of trouble. A nanny does far more with your child, working on manners, education, gross and fine motor development, emotional control, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Not sure. I’m not hiring a nanny to raise my child. I do that. A nanny is just to look after them and keep them out of trouble.

Perhaps you aren’t used to living in a city... if your means if transportaiton is walking then if you’re walking with a toddler it will takes way too long to get anywhere. Hence the scooter or stroller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Not sure. I’m not hiring a nanny to raise my child. I do that. A nanny is just to look after them and keep them out of trouble.

Perhaps you aren’t used to living in a city... if your means if transportaiton is walking then if you’re walking with a toddler it will takes way too long to get anywhere. Hence the scooter or stroller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll bite: link to ONE example in the parents forum where a "MB" is claiming that's acceptable pay.

You searched already and found nothing?

You don't understand how this works. You make a claim, you back it up. You can't just run around saying whatever you feel like and its fact until someone proves you wrong. That's not how the world works. Another hint; nannies don't make $30/hour (unless they work very few hours, like 1 or 2). If you make that much, you're probably doing much more than nannying.

Which thread was it that had the FT nanny earning $52/hr? No one said, repeat: no one said that every nanny qualifies to be "high-earning". You have your average, you have your low-earning newbie nannies (or the warm-body type), and you have the relatively few (rightfully so) high-earning nannies. After all, if they "all" earned 25-30, they wouldn't be "high-earning", would now?

Some nannies DO earn 25-30/hr. Remember, at least one nanny earns $52/hr.? So please stop with your asinine stupidity that "nannies don't make 30/hr., unless they work 1 or 2 hours". The ONLY thing you DO know is what YOU may pay a nanny. And that may be HALF as much (or less) as what SOME other nannies are earning.

And yes, high-income earning nannies indeed do much more than what most of you commonly envision for a "nanny". It may even be that they don't actually "do" more, depending on your understanding "doing". For instance, the best nannies do NOT engage in "multitasking". Because these nannies are not expected to "keep busy", as you call it, they are well-informed AND understand the overwhelming research, that multitasking is definately not something to aspire to. (You may google the word.) So, in just that one example, the professional nanny may be "doing" less, in your eyes. However, if our most acclaimed researchers in this field, come to observe such a nanny, they would most certainly recognize her uncommon ability to teach her charges in a developmentally appropriate fashion. And no, she's not going to try to make a bright 2 or 3 year old child, read. She knows better.

+10000000000 you rock! Love the last line of your post!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Not sure. I’m not hiring a nanny to raise my child. I do that. A nanny is just to look after them and keep them out of trouble.

Perhaps you aren’t used to living in a city... if your means if transportaiton is walking then if you’re walking with a toddler it will takes way too long to get anywhere. Hence the scooter or stroller.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Perhaps this explains why so many big kids (their knees are stuffed in their faces) are still getting pushed around in a stroller:
neither the parents nor the sitter can figure out when the kid should be walking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

I think you actually believe your nonsense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

If this rule made sense then no woman would work since the nanny would be paid the same amount as they earn!

Truth is, it doesn’t take much skill to play with blocks with my child and push a baby around the neighborhood. Whereas I have a specific exepertise that most do not have and my employer recognizes this and my salary reflects this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

You're allowed. I promise! And just like your employer, you get what you pay for. What's good enough for you is good enough. Right?

Anonymous wrote:I make a $175k salary, which is $84 an hour. After tax and deductions this is around $55 an hour. So no, I’m not going to hire a nanny for more than $20 an hour.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll bite: link to ONE example in the parents forum where a "MB" is claiming that's acceptable pay.

You searched already and found nothing?

You don't understand how this works. You make a claim, you back it up. You can't just run around saying whatever you feel like and its fact until someone proves you wrong. That's not how the world works. Another hint; nannies don't make $30/hour (unless they work very few hours, like 1 or 2). If you make that much, you're probably doing much more than nannying.

Which thread was it that had the FT nanny earning $52/hr? No one said, repeat: no one said that every nanny qualifies to be "high-earning". You have your average, you have your low-earning newbie nannies (or the warm-body type), and you have the relatively few (rightfully so) high-earning nannies. After all, if they "all" earned 25-30, they wouldn't be "high-earning", would now?

Some nannies DO earn 25-30/hr. Remember, at least one nanny earns $52/hr.? So please stop with your asinine stupidity that "nannies don't make 30/hr., unless they work 1 or 2 hours". The ONLY thing you DO know is what YOU may pay a nanny. And that may be HALF as much (or less) as what SOME other nannies are earning.

And yes, high-income earning nannies indeed do much more than what most of you commonly envision for a "nanny". It may even be that they don't actually "do" more, depending on your understanding "doing". For instance, the best nannies do NOT engage in "multitasking". Because these nannies are not expected to "keep busy", as you call it, they are well-informed AND understand the overwhelming research, that multitasking is definately not something to aspire to. (You may google the word.) So, in just that one example, the professional nanny may be "doing" less, in your eyes. However, if our most acclaimed researchers in this field, come to observe such a nanny, they would most certainly recognize her uncommon ability to teach her charges in a developmentally appropriate fashion. And no, she's not going to try to make a bright 2 or 3 year old child, read. She knows better.

+10000000000 you rock! Love the last line of your post!

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:These figures are well-confirmed by moms and the caregivers on the parents' forum. Do a search if you feel like it.

NO one in their right mind takes on an infant for a silly dollar an hour.

Your "dollar an hour market rate" is nothing but sheer fabricated myth.

Even high-turnover daycares charge more than that.

"Look Honey, who needs daycare when our (not-so-bright) nanny
will do our newborn care for just an extra dollar an hour!"

Best deal in town, huh?

In your dreams.