General discussion - Mom and Dad Esq.

[Trepidation_Mom]

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
My sister and her husband pay their nanny a salary of $35,000 per year. In Minnesota.

Holy shit. I don't know if that's overpaid or not, but my stomach feels queasy just thinking about it. That's close to $19/hour assuming a 9 hour day.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
Holy shit. I don't know if that's overpaid or not, but my stomach feels queasy just thinking about it. That's close to $19/hour assuming a 9 hour day.

Your kid is spending more time with this person than with anyone else. You think that's worth less than $25k/year? In NY? I'm assuming we're not talking about Rochester, here.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
Holy shit. I don't know if that's overpaid or not, but my stomach feels queasy just thinking about it. That's close to $19/hour assuming a 9 hour day.

Yep -- very spendy. But my sister is an ObGyn and her husband is an orthopedic surgeon so they can afford it.

[ABBAKiss]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your kid is spending more time with this person than with anyone else. You think that's worth less than $25k/year? In NY? I'm assuming we're not talking about Rochester, here.

Exactly. It is expensive, but I agree worth it.

[Trepidation_Mom]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Your kid is spending more time with this person than with anyone else. You think that's worth less than $25k/year? In NY? I'm assuming we're not talking about Rochester, here.

My husband has 20 kids spending more time with him than with their own parents and he's not getting paid $25K/year. But I'm still paying it so ... yeah, I guess.

If child care were costing me $35K/year, though, I'd tell my husband to quit and either stay home with the baby or get a real job that would make him miserable in exchange for money, just like everyone else. He'd probably decide that himself - he's already freaked out that the nanny makes more than him.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Trepidation_Mom
Holy shit. I don't know if that's overpaid or not, but my stomach feels queasy just thinking about it. That's close to $19/hour assuming a 9 hour day.

I often wonder why people have kids if they are going to pay other people to raise them.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
I often wonder why people have kids if they are going to pay other people to raise them.

Because if they didn't, it would - one way or another - tank the American economy. In just about every case where it happens, it's economicly efficient (trepidation mom appears to be one of the few exceptions). There are two alternatives: a) half of every couple with kids drops out of the workforce, causing an immediate drop in the nation's productivity, or b) people don't reproduce, in which case the nation kills itself. Of course, there could be a combination of the two, but it's still less efficient.

It's also a survival mechanism that predates society and is commonly found among animals that survive in packs, including dogs, lions, and most social apes. Some will protect the young while others find food, which they share with those protecting the young. Each particpant in the scheme does better than if there were no caretaking.

But this raises a question in my mind: I often wonder why people without children who don't know what the %&$# they're talking about write stupid crap on the lawyers with kids board.

Originally posted by Not Me
I often wonder why people have kids if they are going to pay other people to raise them.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Should dad stay home too, or just mom? BTW, thanks for setting us back 50 years there. And at what point can mom go back to work? Never? After 5-10 years when her experience and degree are now rendered practically worthless (which brings us back to never)? And when dad can't make the rent on his own - like the overwhelming majority of the working families out there, what's your solution to that? Sell the kid on Ebay to give it a chance at a better life? Or do you think only moms who marry guys with good jobs should be the only ones who get to have kids? Maybe well-off people should be the only ones who get to breed - that would solve a lot of the world's problems, eh? Except many of us wouldn't be here, if that were the case. What about single parent families? Strap the kid to your back while you work? You think Vietmom's baby girl would be better off in some nasty foreign orphanage? I can think of plenty of people who shouldn't have kids, but it's certainly not because the child will spend time with a sitter or in daycare. Maybe rude people should be banned from reproducing - that would at least cut you out of the gene pool.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by baltassoc
But this raises a question in my mind: I often wonder why people without children who don't know what the %&$# they're talking about write stupid crap on the lawyers with kids board.

Balty:

Ahahahahahaha! It finally worked! I've finally done it! I've made you respond to my Not Me sock! It only took me 12 months, several thousand regrettable posts and countless hours to create and set up my devilishly over-the-top sock, but it has all been worth it. I finally got your attention. Who knew that it would be on the Mommy Board. If I had known that earlier, I could have saved about 1500 posts on Politics. Oh well, live and learn.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by TexLex
Why hasn't anyone thought of this before? Should dad stay home too, or just mom? BTW, thanks for setting us back 50 years there. And at what point can mom go back to work? Never? After 5-10 years when her experience and degree are now rendered practically worthless (which brings us back to never)? And when dad can't make the rent on his own - like the overwhelming majority of the working families out there, what's your solution to that? Sell the kid on Ebay to give it a chance at a better life? Or do you think only moms who marry guys with good jobs should be the only ones who get to have kids? Maybe well-off people should be the only ones who get to breed - that would solve a lot of the world's problems, eh? Except many of us wouldn't be here, if that were the case. What about single parent families? Strap the kid to your back while you work? You think Vietmom's baby girl would be better off in some nasty foreign orphanage? I can think of plenty of people who shouldn't have kids, but it's certainly not because the child will spend time with a sitter or in daycare. Maybe rude people should be banned from reproducing - that would at least cut you out of the gene pool.

I am not not not defending anyone, but it hacks me off when people (a) live in an incredibly expensive area, (b) insist on having private care for their kid (because Junior can't go to day care? wtf?) AND (c) bitch that the amount they are paying their caretaker, which is not close to enough to live on in the area -- let alone support a family -- is too much and is almost as much as their own pay. Jesus. They have a lot of choices. (a) move someplace cheaper, (b) send the kid to daycare instead of having the expensive nanny or (c) have the lower-paid spouse stay home for a while to stop the cash hemmorage. If the lower-paid spouse does not want to stay home (because of career path requirements or personal satisfaction issues), you aren't willing to move and you insist on having expensive nanny care, then suck it up and accept that you have to make a financial sacrifice to have it all.

This is not an attack on trepadation mom or anyone else, either, it's just that there's no conversation on the FB and I'm kinda bored.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am not not not defending anyone, but it hacks me off when people (a) live in an incredibly expensive area, (b) insist on having private care for their kid (because Junior can't go to day care? wtf?) AND (c) bitch that the amount they are paying their caretaker, which is not close to enough to live on in the area -- let alone support a family -- is too much and is almost as much as their own pay.

I don't really disagree with you, but let me throw in a couple of extra data points to consider.

Private care, as you put it, is often less expensive than day care, especially if one is talking about more than one kid. With two infants or three kids of mixed ages (day care costs decrease as a kid gets older), the numbers favor a nanny.

I'm not sure how the housing costs really comes into play. Either the lower earning spouse nets more after taxes than the cost of care, or not. The cost of the house could be $500 a month or $5000. Perhaps it's really more of the irony issue. Clearly, there are many people who could afford to pay a nanny AND not have a spouse work, but for the cost of their house. I'm not sure such people would be held in any higher regard, however.

I think bitching about how expensive anything is - from dry cleaning to legal services to child care - is an American way of life. People will get the best care they can afford, which is almost always going to be just slightly more than they want to spend.

[Trepidation_Mom]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I am not not not defending anyone, but it hacks me off when people (a) live in an incredibly expensive area, (b) insist on having private care for their kid (because Junior can't go to day care? wtf?) AND (c) bitch that the amount they are paying their caretaker, which is not close to enough to live on in the area -- let alone support a family -- is too much and is almost as much as their own pay. Jesus.

FWIW, the day care I've found that is acceptable in this city isn't significantly cheaper than the nanny, and the nanny isn't living off what I pay her - she wants a low-stress job with regular hours for pocket money and likes kids, but her husband, a contractor, probably makes more than I do.

They have a lot of choices. (a) move someplace cheaper, (b) send the kid to daycare instead of having the expensive nanny or (c) have the lower-paid spouse stay home for a while to stop the cash hemmorage.

If by cheaper you mean "leave the city and environs entirely," which is what pretty much what we'd have to do, we've considered it but it is sort of an extreme step, don't you think? People bitch and moan about how all sorts of things where they live are expensive (or otherwise unpleasant - Minnesotans complain about crazy-cold winters and Texans complain about the heat); moving is always an option but I can't see getting hacked off about people not doing it. Re: (b) see above and (c), we've considered it, but don't dismiss the "personal satisfaction" issues of having some outside employment - particularly for a man in this society, it is a pretty serious concern. In any event, I reserve my god given right to bitch and moan about stuff I can't change without radically disrupting my life. Or just to bitch and moan, for that matter!

This is not an attack on trepadation mom or anyone else, either...

Of course not -

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I don't really disagree with you, but let me throw in a couple of extra data points to consider.

Private care, as you put it, is often less expensive than day care, especially if one is talking about more than one kid. With two infants or three kids of mixed ages (day care costs decrease as a kid gets older), the numbers favor a nanny.

I'm not sure how the housing costs really comes into play. Either the lower earning spouse nets more after taxes than the cost of care, or not. The cost of the house could be $500 a month or $5000. Perhaps it's really more of the irony issue. Clearly, there are many people who could afford to pay a nanny AND not have a spouse work, but for the cost of their house. I'm not sure such people would be held in any higher regard, however.

I think bitching about how expensive anything is - from dry cleaning to legal services to child care - is an American way of life. People will get the best care they can afford, which is almost always going to be just slightly more than they want to spend.

I don't recall ever mentioning housing costs. I was referring more to the cost of living for the caregiver -- whether the caregiver can afford to live on what he/she is being paid. $25,000 goes a lot farther in San Antonio than it does in NYC. It's probably even a living wage in San Antonio.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't recall ever mentioning housing costs. I was referring more to the cost of living for the caregiver -- whether the caregiver can afford to live on what he/she is being paid. $25,000 goes a lot farther in San Antonio than it does in NYC. It's probably even a living wage in San Antonio.

I see what you mean now, although your first post was a little ambiguous. Since I posted much the same thing yesterday (that people who live in expensive areas not reachable by public transportation have to pay a premium), I completely agree with you.

One of the benefits to a well paid and benefitted nanny is that she is more likely to stick with the job.

At the end of her 10 year stint in my employment (the kids are now too old for a full-time nanny) my nanny was getting about $45K when social security and health insurance were figured in. Enough to buy a town house in Silicon Valley, in one of the less expensive East Bay towns. We paid 2 weeks vacation time, but with the agreement that it would be taken when we were away in the summer.

But she loved the kids and was reliable and steady for 10 years, so I can't say that I regretted the money. In the end, saving a few dollars on child care was not that important.