I know people are going to think I am totally out of order but I just have to say (having looked at a few threads over the years on MN) but childminders/nannies/au pairs...

[smilerwile]

Are massively underpaid!

OK.

Here's a good salary for a mum - £60,000
Here's what mum gets after tax - £3,475 after tax each month.
Here's what she pays the nanny (45 hrs@ 11 gross per hour) each month £1,640
Here's what she pays the taxman for the luxury of having a nanny £718
Here's what she has left each month to herself £1,117

So, the mum on a £60k salary ends up with just two thirds of what the nanny takes home each month.

And your point is?

You can't lump them all together like that.... Or do you just mean childcare providers in general?

Different jobs with diferent duties and responsibilities attract different salaries covering a HUGE range!

StillSquiffy:
But it's hard to see why a Nanny should get paid less than a working parent. And it isn't the Nanny's fault that tax is due.
And in the case of needing childcare because TWO parents work, the childcare costs should be set against both parents salaries, not just the Mum's. The Mum, (and dad) by working are getting other benefits such as NI paid towards contributions-based pension, maybe company pension, as well as investment in career that leads to promotion and increased salary in the future.

Well we paid £25000 gross for a 40 hour week nanny. I don't think that's particularly underpaid. It's the same salary as the secretaries at my work.

The working parent employing the nanny is likely to have a considerably higher educational level (although not always) and may be in a position of greater pressure and responsibility wrt managing staff, budgets, targets etc though. There are likely to be fewer people capable of doing that job in terms of specialist skills and experience therefore they get paid more than a nanny, who may well only have a an education equivalent to A-levels.

Although one could argue you can't put a price on being in charge of children and the responsibility it entails...

It's not just people who provide childcare that are massively underpaid, there are many services that I could list. (In fact going to the other end I also feel that the many many volunteers that provide a service that many many others can enjoy for pleasure or for help in improving the quality of their well-being are another quick example.)

Returning to childcare providers:
How much someone earns does not come into the fact that childcare providers are underpaid (IMO).

I'm not a childcare provider by the way.

I do not wish to belittle people who make use of those who use childcare providers, I just wanted to say out loud, an opinion that I have held for many years. Just because it often astounds me.

Sorry last posting a bit garbled but rushing off.

How much someone earns does not come into the fact that childcare providers are underpaid

don't understand that sentence at all - please explain.

~£42K per year, which is what it would cost to employ our nanny full-time (assuming a ten hour day) for five days on her current net rate, is massively underpaid, is it?

Are you a banker? Struggling to think of who else would think this was a measily salary - and have the guts to voice it in the current economic environment.

I suspect you may just not have that much, if any, personal experience of employing someone like a nanny so don't know what it actually costs all-in.

But childcare as a profession by its nature attracts a lower salary than the occupations of those who are employing them. Simple economics. If you can't afford childcare you don't work therefore your childcare provider must be on a lower salary than your disposable income.

What does the OP think I should pay for a 42hr, 4 day week nanny?

£20k?, £25K? £30K?

(25K, by the way, is the actual answer)

You're lucky to find someone for that amount. For what you quoted above I could never find someone in London to do the job. Hence I have three forms of childcare to make it all add up.

'Tis surely supply and demand to a large extent; if nannies hoiked up their prices further then fewer people would be able to afford them, and more nannies would be out of work....or am I missing something...?

That's what I love about MN - I feel enlightened now. Things that I've seen and heard over the years have made me think and wonder. Some childcare providers are brilliant and I often wonder if some parents know how fortunate their kids are, a couple of others have been a cause for concern or sadness. Guess it's like lots of occupations and there can be vast areas of difference in pay. I'm also sure that if parents could earn more then they could pay more in some cases a bit like the subject of how much would it cost to pay a "homemaker" in realistic terms. Some SAHM are rubbish others do a brilliant job because all individuals are different.
By the way, those I know personally pay very little nowhere near the sums quoted above.

I think many nannies seem underpaid because they talk net. Earning £350 a week for them is £500 for most people.

Au pairs are a completely different kettle of fish - they get a lower wage (reflecting their lower experience and qualifications) but do get room, board, food etc and typically work fewer hours.

Likewise childminders charge per child per hour or per day, so may in fact be earning £15/hour by maxing out their spaces but each child pays £3/hour.

So depending what solution you want for, say, a 20 hour week you could pay £60 plus living costs of an au pair, on average £80 for a childminder or £120-300 for a nanny.

Aha there is a distinction to be made here. OP says childcare providers are underpaid, not that those engaging their services are not paying enough. Scandinavian and many European countries have highly subsidised childcare therefore you pay much less but the childcare provider gets much more...

After reading MN for many years I'm amazed at how MUCH nannies are paid. What qualifications do you need to be a nanny? Some of them on this board are paid more than, say, an architect who has to train for seven years

As a nanny I am on 12k a year, I would like to be the nanny who gets £42k a year.

Anything from nothing specific through an NNEB (or equivalent) a degree, possibly in early years, to being a qualified teacher. It's a function of experience as well - there are nannies posting on here with 20 years of nannying behind them.

Earning at the top end of the scale usually means you're very highly qualified, very experienced or your employers have bought your soul.

Bear in mind nannies, usually paid hourly, work 10-12 hour days as standard too. Over a week those extra 10 or 20 hours mount up to am additional £100+.

Personally I don't think I ever felt underpaid as a nanny. I feel underpaid in my current job! Maybe I was just lucky

Sorry that sliding scale of qualifications isn't very clear

Anything from nothing specific through an NNEB (or equivalent), sometimes a degree, possibly in early years, to being a qualified teacher.

Considering I earn £30,000 as a junior sister on a ward (I'm in London, would be 25k elsewhere) I think these rates of pay sound bloody good for a nanny! Alhough I'm sure the majority of them don't earn that much.

I would never be able to get anyone to interview for £12K a year. Where on earth do you work?

Badger
If their gross salaries are not what we've quoted here it MAY be because the families are not paying the tax ni etc yada. This is what hikes it all up.

Really, I dont know anyone paying less than £2500 for a full time live out nanny per month.

There are nanny tax calculators on line which lay out the costs.

So the nannies take home £25,000 (or whatever it may be) after tax? Wow, can't imagine how their employees afford it! Surely it should be like any other job, your rate of pay is advertised before tax contributions?

No it doesn't work like that generally. Salaries tend to be advertised by their hourly rate in net for nannies.

For example the amt I quoted was for £500 net p/w assuming ten hours a day live out, which is a normal London salary. It works out as around 38K but then there is another bit and piece you have to add on that the nanny tax calc I use doesn't show, which pushes it up. If you are paying everything you should be paying.