Habsgirl - the example was how much you would have to earn to have the same disposable income as your nanny, rather than just to cover her costs. As far as I recall it wasn't a rant that nannies earn too much, it was just an eye opener about the reality of women returning to work and the financial benefits they receive for that.
Anyway, you have demonstrated that to afford a nanny, you need well above the average income for a woman in any region, even expensive areas. And that is just to break even and make a net income of nil. Not a penny of that 37k do you receive in compensation for working.
I assume that anyone below that income threshold would therefore be precluded from having a nanny. I don't suppose having a nanny has ever been that viable except for fairly high earners. However, if you have upwards of 2 children, it is possibly your most cost effective option once you take into account after school clubs, school holidays, private nursery places, childminders and all the other wrap around care needed to hold down a successful job.
If I ever earned that sort of money, and did the sort of job in my sector that would be needed to earn that much, I would expect to get a better net financial reward for all the stress and responsibility. So I will end my career progression right here for now. And that is why women probably don't get the better jobs in this society. It's just not worth it unless you are incredibly driven for success for its own sake.
buffys mum - i agree with your point about number of children. And yet for many people, the days of 150k houses are long gone and in the dim and distant past. Here you are looking at 300k minimum. For those who say move to a cheaper area, it isn't possible. Further into London is much more expensive, but further out gets you into commuter land and again is more expensive. We are in a pocket of 'cheapness' in the SE.