Really it is their choice.

and the correct answer is "It is up to the family to decide.".

works for them.

If you need to rationalize it, look at them giving someone a job.

But in reality, it is their choice and if freely made, and they are content, whatever.

That's not disgusting.

That's love, kiddo.

but when my sister was a nanny, she said it was a status thing. Wealthy folks are often very concerned about how other wealthy folks view them.

people with lower incomes have to do -- but they can afford to spend the money to get one-to-one care.

Why should they be criticized for that?

My doctor has a nanny. I'm glad she is my doctor and I'm glad she has good care for her two children while she works. She doesn't have a nanny for status reasons, but so she can feel confident in their care while she's working.

She could talk about the things they do for social reasons more intelligently than I.

She told me about a fad where they would buy expensive clothes and throw them away just so their neighbors could see them throwing away expensive clothes. So funny.

Or checks the things in the give-away bags and boxes on their neighbors' porch?

Step one is, "Stop giving a shit what other people think"

Step two is, "stop paying $19.95 for a book by some jackass that purports to tell you how to live your life"

Careful though, many religious people may be offended by your book. You're describing religious/holy texts.

This is why they kicked me out of both business school AND the monastary.

but if they can afford it, I'm sure it is certainly convenient in getting from point A to point B.

Everyone needs TRANSPORTATION. Some people take the bus, some people can afford a car, some people can afford to have someone drive them.

They have a nanny for the workweek.

They wanted to have those children, and they both need to work. The nanny is a necessity. Two of the kids are not yet school age.

They are completely involved in their children's lives.

It is not your place to question why people do things like this.

but otherwise I agree. I don't think one parent has to stay home. There's nothing wrong with both parents choosing to remain employed outside of the home.

them into daycare -- which requires a separate monthly charge for each.

Because if that were true, more people with multiple children would hire nannies.

because it's cheaper than day care for 3 children. much cheaper.

Never mind, then.

Good grief. It isn't a bad thing to admit nannies are a luxury. I don't get it.

package includes free rent, than to pay the expenses of multiple children in good daycares.

And no one with a choice would deliberately put their child into substandard care, though some are forced to by circumstances. The family in the OP is not.

IOW for families with multiple children, a nanny can be the less expensive option, so it would hardly be considered a "luxury."

Because it isn't true. Nannies, particularly live in nannies, are a luxury.

They sometimes put their children into unlicensed, substandard care because it's the only thing they can afford.

That doesn't make good care -- whether in a licensed day care facility or with a nanny -- a luxury.

If what you claim is true?

Let's not pretend we aren't talking about daycares with wait lists and testing and status reputation and the premium tuition that goes along with that. That is the world of the types of people that hire in home nannies, particularly in the urban areas you're talking about. There are licensed day cares that don't do that and don't charge the premiums that you're using to rationalize the in home nannies are cheaper argument.

Instead of arguing that all children should be entitled to high quality care, just as all children should be entitled to high quality public schools?

I don't think babies need prestige. It's totally unnecessary.

in Canada, Scandinavia, and many other countries are superior to ours.

And hiring a nanny may be a luxury. But, it doesn't mean that parents are disengaged, which is what the OP was putting forth.

expenses a bit more than an individual nanny, much cheaper than day care. I remember the woman who watched my nephews swore she never parked them in front of the TV, LOL. First words out of his mouth were all Telle Tubbie speak.

And I doubt that rich parents would ever send their kids to one. I'm not advocating they do. But rich parents usually won't just send their kids to any licensed day care. There are licensed day care centers. And then there are premium, prestigious day care centers that cost much more. Those are the ones that could be argued are more expensive than hiring a nanny. But I argue that is a luxury, too. Simply put, I'm not buying the argument of nanny as necessity.

be cheaper than a day care center. For two kids, definitely cheaper. Much if it is under the table.

But to argue that that can only be acquired through a nanny is ridiculous. That is my point. That it is a cheaper option and not a luxury is nonsense as well.

the second kid.

I just don't see it as a necessity. They could have chosen perfectly good, licensed daycare that would have cost less money. Still expensive. But cheaper. And I live in the NYC metro area.

that good child care can only be acquired through a nanny?

It's an option that lots of people use. I don't think it's superior (though it's the route that I chose.)

What makes me bristle is the OP. Which accuses people of being disengaged from their child's life if they have a live in nanny. I don't have a live in nanny. We have a part time nanny. But live-ins are cheaper than live outs (in NYC), so it's an option that some people go with if they are budgeting costs and think hiring a nanny is important or necessary.

They both had one child. I lived in and took care of just about everything and I didn't get paid much, cuz well they were fairly poor. I am talking mac-n-cheese with peas poor, half tang half orange juice poor. Some weeks I would take a cut in pay with the first family I lived with, she was really really poor. The second family the guy was a single dad and his mother just couldn't keep up with his son 24 hours a day and keep up with her household stuff at the same time. Anyway, he always paid, but still the menu items weren't great and I am not a chef. Oh and the son was special needs, I have no training, but his grade improved a whole lot while I was there because the first thing he had to do was homework and I would help him with that. I told him any time he got confused at school to ask questions.

You realize this isn't the norm in the US. If so, that is very unusual.

there are very few day cares and this is true of many rural areas. However, in Minneapolis it's still cheaper to have in house child care if you have more than one child. I suspect this nanny situation is a lot more common than people realize, because poor people don't call the nanny a nanny we are baby sitters. Also it's very very informal you get the job knowing a friend of a friend or it's a relative or someone from the church you go to.

I do think it can be said that nannies are really glorified babysitters. The main difference is they cost a heck of a lot more. I had one of those babysitters for awhile growing up, too. She was one of my mom's friends. I went to her house after school till she picked me at night when her shift was over.

at least after the age five when children go to kindergarten at least by first grade, when they the hours a babysitter is needed is cut way down.

Even aftercare programs can be pretty pricey and add up fast, though it is a break from having to pay full time. Before I was school aged my parents worked opposite shifts so one was always home. Looking back now as a parent and spouse I realize how hard that must have been, and know there are people now who do this if they can manage it. I wish affordable childcare were more widely available.

especially if we want to see fewer people on welfare and I do. I am pretty sure most women would rather work and would if they didn't have to pay out most of their check or even more than they actually make for day care costs. The system isn't just cray cray it's pretty broken. I certainly wouldn't have stayed out of work as much as I did if affordable options were available like a couple hundred dollars a month instead of a couple hundred a week.

and need child care.

is free rent.

It's a luxury. Like almost all other luxuries, there are people who will fall over themselves to explain how it's a necessity and not all rich people have them. I don't get why this happens.

Or do you consider it a luxury for a woman to have a career?

I consider it a luxury because it's thousands of dollars more than even the thousands of dollars a month for three day care tuitions.

And good, full time day care is more expensive than you realize.

I don't agree that the cost of three tuitions of daycare that meets the standards of the nanny hirerers means that nannies aren't a luxury. I'm sorry. They could also afford the tuitions of those high reputation daycares also. It could also be argued that is a luxury as well. Day care centers that are also more than adequate would be fine as well, but just won't do for them. That is their choice. There's nothing wrong with that. But I won't accept the argument that all of that is born out of necessity. That doesn't mean I think mothers should stay home. Two separate issues.

And why should good daycare be considered a luxury?

Why don't you call it a "luxury" if a family can afford to have a parent stay home full time, without worrying about what happens to the career of that person?

https://www.care.com/a/child-care-choices-au-pair-daycare-or-nanny-1110070340

DAY CARE

Consider cost factors and realize they can vary according to where you live. Recent survey findings from a National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies found the average annual cost of full-time care for an infant in a center in 2010 ranged from $4,650 in Mississippi to $18,200 in the District of Columbia. The average annual cost for full-time care for a 4-year-old in a center ranged from $3,900 in Mississippi to $14,050 in the District of Columbia.

Nanny

Cost: You should pay a nanny at least minimum wage. Many nannies will charge an hourly wage that is significantly higher than this. The cost will depnd on where you live, the number of hours, number/age of kids and previous experience. Use our pay scale calculator to determine the going rate in your area. Most states don't regulate nannies in your home, so it's important to do your own background check and to follow up and check references.

Who they're best for: Often this is more cost-efficient for families with two or more children (or a pet) and especially convenient for parents who would benefit from a clean house, a walked-dog and well-fed kids when they get home from work. Families with erratic work schedules who can't always make a 5:30 pick-up greatly benefit from having a nanny they can call when a meeting runs late.
If you have an infant or a very young child, you may find a nanny to be your best option, as care is provided in your home and the baby is getting the one-on-one attention you would give if you were home.

I don't have a problem calling something what it is. I really don't understand the tight jawed We're NOT riiiich. We're juuuuust like everyone eeelse crap. I don't entertain it. No, they aren't slumming it when they send their kids to the premium prestige rich kid day care instead of hiring a nanny. I'm not saying they shouldn't. But I'm not going to lie, either.

And all children should be entitled to good care. It shouldn't be considered a luxury.

Teslas are luxuries. Rolex watches are luxuries.

But children are not luxuries. And nannies for multiple children are often the most economical and practical option -- not a luxury.

And enough with your slamming me with things I'm not even saying. I stayed home out of economic necessity which is something that always gets ignored. Everyone assumes it's rich women who do this. It isn't. I'm fully aware of how expensive day care is, so shove that straw back where it belongs. I would have much rather had a career. That was a luxury I couldn't afford. I just love the obviously afflutent women in this thread with thier comments about themselves and their affluent friends and jaunts to St Trope telling me what is and isn't a luxury.

personal attack notwithstanding, it's obvious that in this thread people don't want to listen to each other's experiences and would rather just cast negatives at people who have lived different experiences. Rather than listen.

This is the problem with society in general, as well. Everyone thinks they are right and aren't willing to listen to what other people say. It's easier to insult others.

agreement with you. Paying for licensed daycare, as opposed to someone watching the kid at home with their own, especially for more than 1 child is very expensive.

Options are stay home, don't work, don't have an income. Stay home, take in other people's kids unlicensed. Work and pay most your salary for daycare. Work and hire a nanny.

Yes, it is possible to pay a nanny quite decently, and if you have the money, that is great. It is also possible to pay more money for a higher end daycare and if you have the money and inclination, more power to you.

But. For most of us, it comes down to a rock and a hard place. When I get to be Queen of the Universe, or even having Great Political Power, I would push for increasing wages to daycare workers, and heavily funding the cost to parents.

We can agree.

I stayed home with my children, and after they were older, I was able to work at home. HOWEVER, I strongly support the right of families to make their own choices, and I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all approach to this. I have watched the children of many friends and relatives grow up, and how they turned out had nothing to do with whether they stayed at home with mom or went to daycare.

Parents with jobs are fully capable of loving their children and making them feel loved, and that's the bottom line. (And bad parents, unfortunately, exist in every bracket.)

more children to the equation and it can top $300/week. Check out all the nanny/au pair job sites that have live-ins available for as low as 100/week (plus room and board). More people aren't getting nannies because, like you, they assume that it's something only available to the wealthy. So now is your chance to become informed and possibly help someone who is struggling to do it all alone.

I paid 800/month for 1 child 2 years ago. And she was a potty trained preschooler. For babies, it's much more. I know a few people here who have live in nannies and they aren't rich. If you have a live-in nanny, it can be a lot cheaper when you have more than 1 or 2 kids. Also - and this is a big one - finding childcare outside of the 8-5 workday is nearly impossible. My daughter's caregiver (a licensed home daycare) didn't go any earlier than 7am or any later than 6pm. Those were the agency rules. So for people with jobs that aren't during those hours, were screwed. There are *no* childcare options in my area for different hours unless you have family...or hire a live-in nanny.

that'll cost the parent for the rest of their working lives.

Why don't you tell me about the damages of sitting out a career. I wouldn't know anything about that.

two of my closest friends. They are the primary breadwinners, but their husbands didn't want to be a SAHD.
So they should lose 2/3 of their income and derail a great career just because they're women? It doesn't work like that anymore of women do not want it to.

Second kids have nannies around here more often than go to daycare. It's common in two career families too, because day care has shorter hours and is less flexible.

I don't know what around here is for you, and it could be an unusual place. It could be that I'm coming from a more unusual situation in that I come from a blue color, working class background but my circumstances are now very much different so I've lived in both worlds. Still do really, because most of my family and many friends are still back home in the same neighborhood. And even though, as I say, there were circumstances where my choice to stay at home was due to circumstances I really would rather not get into because I'd rather not divulge personal matters, I'm definitely not in the same world I grew up in. So, I'm sure that very much colors my view of things. But I simply cannot view nannies as anything other than the privilege it is.

I'm not making a judgment. I know people who hire nannies and I don't think they're horrible people and neglectful parents. I'm imply stating a fact. There are aspects of my own life that I see as luxuries and would never in a million years tell other people are necessities that non affluent people also enjoy because that simply isn't the case. I see other people around me doing this all the time. I don't understand this tendency.

I could not believe the incredible difference in price, but live in changes everything. And this was a fairly poor neighborhood, where I grew up. We did not consider it a luxury as it was also cheaper than nursing homes. Nursing homes that would have had her in restraints all day, because she had severe dementia. It was on or the other, because we all had jobs and we needed to eat. Quitting work for an indefinite amount of time and living in poverty while changing diapers was something none of us could handle.

For Moms, a Nanny arrangement can help a great deal with after hours care, flexible schedules, pets, having to travel for work and stuff that just happens when you have a job that can demand more than an eight hour day. So many jobs require a flexibility that day care cannot come close to supply. Some of my best friends are or were nannies- and not for rich people.

People do what they have to do, within their means to keep their home life happy and running smoothly. I know a couple of people who do a nanny share thing and have their kids go to day care other days. It helps them to know they can keep flexible work hours a few days a week. And they think it is great for the kids to be socialized at a young age. I know a SAHD who has free time to watch the kid, a very tight budget who has decided that his daughter should be in day care 2-3 days a week for the social aspect. She is thriving. Their money is tight because of this, but they are very very happy for their daughter, so they are trying to make it work.

For one thing, you can definitely make the argument for necessity. Luxury isn't just about how much something costs. There are things in life that are outrageously expensive but necessary. I'd never argue otherwise.

I'm not arguing that nannies are useless. I sure would love a nanny. I'm not saying they aren't great. But that doesn't mean they aren't a luxury.

while no one expected shit from the men in the family. This is true for too many women working these days.
Not everyone is cut out to be a caregiver, and if they hate it- they should find another arrangement that works. women should be able to opt out as easily as men. costs are not always about the dollars, but quality of life for everyone.
but they can still be a great parent. my mom sucked, she was miserable staying at home. i would have loved a few days a week at daycare or a nanny, LOL. but we were a single shrinking income family, so that was not going to happen.

But while you might have considered it a luxury, I think you'd be hardpressed to find people who'd generally call it that. It's also a cost that is sometimes covered at least in part by insurance. Not a luxury.

2-3 hours per day- and she needed help with everything, all day long. that was no help at all. could not be unsupervised as she could run off, burn the house down and later needed help in and out of bed. My family thought that and another 3-5 hours PT help would be the cheapest way. But it was much more than FT. And PT help would have never been as reliable.
Kids and caring for very ill people is demanding 24/7 and if you can mange to pay someone to ease part of it, because that works best for the family... well, I don't see the problem. If you have a career, at some point it can be a necessity in order to preserve that career.

I've stayed at home with my children. It is hard work. But I would never even begin to pretend it was the same thing as what someone care giving for a sick person has to go through. Yes, taking time of from a career is a sacrifice no matter what, but the physical and psychological toll it takes to caregive is so great that it simply cannot be expected for one person to take that burden alone. Some people manage because they have no choice, but that does not make it a luxury when they get help.

viable one. I am sorry but sometimes nannnies are just as cheap as 2 kids in day care. Look it up. May not be that way in all communities, and of course how much salary or lifetime earnings that will be lost are going to vary widely. But those things are what people calcualte in making the best decison for their family. It's not the same decision for everyone, and sily to try and game the math to point fingers at others for not choosing your approved way.

It reminds me of the time someone argued with me about their luxury car purchase and how it was actually economical and would save them money in the long run. I'm sorry.

and board.

And the adult who needs live-in care might well have family members who could potentially have done it, but they don't want to leave their jobs.

So the situations are comparable.

and like I said elsewhere, if you can do live in, it would be cheaper than hiring someone a few hours a day. PT rates are very expensive.

there is no way I could be happy staying home for years, my mental health is a huge priority- everything else will fll apart- economically and otherwise if I lost my cookies. so I did everything in my power to avoid that. If I had a baby, I would still work, and I'd find an arrangement that allowed me to do that. I saw my Mom live a life of misery because she sacrificed thirty years of her life to the SAHM life. It's not for everyone, and no one should feel guilty about it if they are also there for the kids.

This is what I mean. Childcare is a necessity. Vacations are a neccessity. Nannies aren't. A second vacation home isn't. Cars are, for many people at least, a necessity. A Porsche isn't.

nothing to do with having two homes. just one happy home.
meh, a lot of people think home ownership is a necessity too, but it isn't. see how that works?
for some others, things you think are important and needed are extraneous. yet you need them.

of the very expensive day care you'll pay because of the socioeconomic circumstances and area you live in. I know it seems normal and it's easy to forget that's not a world a lot of people live in, but there it is.

day care is expensive in NYC, immigrant labur can be had pretty reasonably compared to other costs locally.
Nice chatting with you I am out of here.

And don't think I don't know about the immigrant labor

on top of an emotional one.

It's quite possible. Because nannies are a luxury.

That's the only way to get affordable daycare in NYC They are a status symbol in NYC for that reason because of their reputation for affordability. Those rich people in NYC are really just penny pinchers. In the same way that luxury cars are and that guy who was trying to convince me it was economical was totally right. Why is everyone else driving Toyota? Why won't anyone let them in on that secret? Crazy.

luxury car's monthly payment is the same or oftentimes even less than the guy in the Camry. There is no secret. You just have to be willing to do research on your full range of options instead of assuming.

Rather than the 8-1 ratio you get at day cares?

What if parents forgo personal luxuries such as clothes, vacations, eating out, hobbies, etc. to provide their children 1-on-1 care in their own home? Are they still worthy of your scorn?

point. And I think it's lost on that poster.

Work outside the traditional 9 to 5 timeline or live somewhere where childcare has a waiting list several months long.

We recently moved for my residency to a small town. If my partner works in his field, we have no choice but a nanny.

Better the kids be exposed to the values of the working class than to those of their parents.

I remember a book by David McClelland years ago in which he suggested that one of the reasons for the fall of aristocratic classes was the fact that their self-centered values were not perpetuated in their offspring due to the kids' being raised by servants who transmitted the servant view of the world.

I really don't know if there's anything to McClelland's theory, but it would be nice to figure out a way to keep these monsters from replicating their twisted ideologies across the generations.

yeesh, I had no idea there was so much support for the "job creators" here on DU.

I just find it puzzling, that when your kids are of preschool age, and you chose to have them, why you wouldn't want to be involved in their lives?

I guess wondering that makes me Satan, I guess.