Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you think you can get a room mate?

Seriously? Is everyone going to focus on the fact that this adult woman is living alone? We do not know OPs circumstances. Nor do we need to. Her argument has merit whether she lives alone or not.

No, if you want to live alone that is a luxury. It is a luxury afforded by education and hard work. If you want to be a nanny, which is her choice, for the lack of any official requirements, no degree needed, no training or barrier to entry, easy work, flexible hours, etc etc then don't expect to be making the same as a teacher with a masters. A "living wage" does not mean a house, an iPhone, the fastest tier of internet and 400 cable channels, and a 2010+ car. It means a roof (probably with roommates), basic internet with no cable, a flip phone, and transportation in some fashion (old car, bike, metro pass, etc.)

Just because you can't afford the latest and greatest everything does not mean everyone else is holding you down. You take kids to the park for pete's sake! You warm up milk and watch Maury while kids take a 3 hour nap. And you have the nerve to complain about $15-20 an hour. My God....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I refrain from posting this all the time, but it literally makes my eyes hurt. There is already a huge stereotype that nannies are stupid and uneducated, so let's try not to perpetuate it!

To is an expression of motion, or identifying an affected person or object.

Too means in addition or also.

They do not mean nearly the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

I don't know how you determined the poster was a nanny. I also don't know how you determined it was not an autocorrect that does not reflect their grasp of the English language. Most of all, how did you read the entire thread and decide a grammar coreection was the best contribution you could make?

I've posted on this thread multiple times, thank you, and you can tell from that poster's previous questions that is our resident overzealous nanny troll. Whether or not it was an autocorrect issue in this case, which I doubt, it is a common enough mistake on this board that I think *some* posters need to be reminded. Whether you believe it or not, bad grammar and spelling undercut any good arguments you might have and get you dismissed as a whiny nanny. It is much more difficult to dismiss a calmly-presented, well-articulated argument. I am honestly trying to help, and I hope that you can get past your defensiveness and consider what I have said.

Anonymous wrote:OP, do you think you can get a room mate?

Seriously? Is everyone going to focus on the fact that this adult woman is living alone? We do not know OPs circumstances. Nor do we need to. Her argument has merit whether she lives alone or not.

OP, do you think you can get a room mate?

* dang autocorrect.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I refrain from posting this all the time, but it literally makes my eyes hurt. There is already a huge stereotype that nannies are stupid and uneducated, so let's try not to perpetuate it!

To is an expression of motion, or identifying an affected person or object.

Too means in addition or also.

They do not mean nearly the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

I don't know how you determined the poster was a nanny. I also don't know how you determined it was not an autocorrect that does not reflect their grasp of the English language. Most of all, how did you read the entire thread and decide a grammar coreection was the best contribution you could make?

Anonymous wrote:The problem with your thinking is that just because you work hard does not mean you are entitled to all the nice things you described. If you want those things you should get a degree and earn more.

Would you stand up for the same idea if you replaced the word nanny with McDonalds worker?

Stop trying to change the wage for nannies, if you have a degree and don't like the pay in this field then go somewhere else. If you don't have a degree then you should be grateful for $15 an hour.

As a nanny here is where your money should go:
Rent: $500 ($1500 2 bedroom split 3 ways)
Transportation: get a bike
Health Insurance: not needed
Groceries: $200
Phone: $35 T-mobile, you don't need an iPhone, you are a nanny

That's $735. Since you earn well over $2000 a month you have plenty left for personal things or to put at least $500 a month away in savings to go to college.

Hope this helps you realize the error of your ways.

While I agree the nanny could do things to live within her means, to say she doesn't need healthcare is crazy.

Anonymous wrote:Okay, I refrain from posting this all the time, but it literally makes my eyes hurt. There is already a huge stereotype that nannies are stupid and uneducated, so let's try not to perpetuate it!

To is an expression of motion, or identifying an affected person or object.

Too means in addition or also.

They do not mean nearly the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

Sorry to make your eyes hurt. Perhaps you should go to sleep. It's almost 10pm.

Okay, I refrain from posting this all the time, but it literally makes my eyes hurt. There is already a huge stereotype that nannies are stupid and uneducated, so let's try not to perpetuate it!

To is an expression of motion, or identifying an affected person or object.

Too means in addition or also.

They do not mean nearly the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent post by UrbanNanny. Are you in DC or where?

In DC.

Are you a mother to?

Anonymous wrote:Excellent post by UrbanNanny. Are you in DC or where?

In DC.

Excellent post by UrbanNanny. Are you in DC or where?

Anonymous wrote:9:37's tone was a bit insensitive and I disagree with the notion that a nanny does not need insurance, but she is correct in her assertion that the problem lies in the nanny's lifestyle expectations.

$15 an hour is not a rate that affords a great lifestyle, but as in any career, a nanny who is new or lacks a college degree should not expect to earn as much as someone with better credentials or a better skillset just because she wants a certain lifestyle. When I was a new college graduate earning a ridiculously low administrative assistant salary in New York City, I managed by renting a single room for a while and then living with roommates in an apartment where we converted the living room into a bedroom, so we had no real common space. This kind of arrangement is very typical for young professionals in NYC. A few years later I had worked up and was earning more, so I upgraded to a rundown studio that was maybe 350 square feet total without a real kitchen. It wasn't great, but that is what I could afford at the time. Eventually I went back to school and found a way to earn myself better housing and more luxuries.

So, while I recognize that $1500 is low for a one-bedroom apartment in DC proper, I agree with 9:37 that a one bedroom apartment is a luxury for a nanny earning $15 per hour. If the nanny is ambitious and great at her job, she should be able to work up to a better rate and lifestyle over time, like everyone else in every other profession. Also, very few nannies in DC work 40 hours a week, so the income level in OP's post is artificially low.

Arguments like this are appealing because it is easier to attack the individual then to take on a poorly functioning system. No person should have to live without bare necessities. We aren't talking about a 'great lifestyle' here. If you reduce the rent to $1000 but add in utilities, washing clothes, and saving for emergencies you still get to an amount that is not sustainable on $15. And that is not a reflection of a nannies skill set. That is not the pay of a new graduate or someone without experience. That is the pay rate with all of those assets.

This same argument is used to block laws that protect child workers and increased the minimum wage. It focuses on the individual, suggesting that they alone create the social context that makes disparity possible. It suggests that the failure is in the individual because they could not make the world a better place to live in. It is the same argument used to fight civil rights legislation in the 60s and to deny women the right to vote. I am fed up of hearing it. There is an obvious inequity in working 45-50 hours per week and not being able to see a doctor when you are ill. This is not nannies 'living above their means.' Not nannies living in so called 'hip' neighborhoods. Not nannies wanting 'luxury' accommodations. Those words are being used to distract from what we are really asking for: that if we work forty hours a week our pay be enough to fill our fridge and keep our lights on.

Anonymous wrote:9:37's tone was a bit insensitive and I disagree with the notion that a nanny does not need insurance, but she is correct in her assertion that the problem lies in the nanny's lifestyle expectations.

$15 an hour is not a rate that affords a great lifestyle, but as in any career, a nanny who is new or lacks a college degree should not expect to earn as much as someone with better credentials or a better skillset just because she wants a certain lifestyle. When I was a new college graduate earning a ridiculously low administrative assistant salary in New York City, I managed by renting a single room for a while and then living with roommates in an apartment where we converted the living room into a bedroom, so we had no real common space. This kind of arrangement is very typical for young professionals in NYC. A few years later I had worked up and was earning more, so I upgraded to a rundown studio that was maybe 350 square feet total without a real kitchen. It wasn't great, but that is what I could afford at the time. Eventually I went back to school and found a way to earn myself better housing and more luxuries.

So, while I recognize that $1500 is low for a one-bedroom apartment in DC proper, I agree with 9:37 that a one bedroom apartment is a luxury for a nanny earning $15 per hour. If the nanny is ambitious and great at her job, she should be able to work up to a better rate and lifestyle over time, like everyone else in every other profession. Also, very few nannies in DC work 40 hours a week, so the income level in OP's post is artificially low.

Thank you for agreeing with me. I am glad some people on this board can still think critically. The vibe I get from all these nannies is "I am RAISING your child! You can't even be decent enough to let me afford to drive a BMW? WHAT A CHEAPSKATE."

^^Don't you think it's kind of a crazy indication of the sad state of affairs in this country, that a grown woman who chooses to make her living carrying out the care of our nation's (wealthiest) children is considered to have too luxurious of standards to expect to be able to live in a simple 1 bedroom apartment with a full time job?

This country will continue on its downward spiral until we reassertion the values we once held so dearly. We once believed that people who worked hard for an honest living should be able to be able to live a decent lifestyle. We once valued families, and children, and we respected the people who cared for and shaped future generations. What the hell happened that no one gives a f*ck about teachers and caregivers?

From a selfish point of view, I genuinely believe that paying your nanny only enough to scrape by is doing your family a true disservice. The nanny who is scraping by, living with a bunch of roommates, driving the beater, avoiding the doctor, hungry, and burnt out because she can never have fun, because she can't afford it or doesn't have time after her 50 hour workweek, evening sitting, and weekend gig, IS NOT going to be an excellent nanny.

If every day is a physical mental and financial struggle you have nothing left to give to a stupid job. And that is exactly what your child becomes when she is scraping by. She will become burnt out because nannies the "ceiling" for nanny salaries are incredibly low, and every new MB expects to start you at the bottom again. They *need* a nanny, but she doesn't *need* a safe apartment or privacy.