Because of a recent discussion with a friend of mine, I'd like to ask the parents and the teenagers:
What do you pay for babysitting? What do you base that on?
For teenagers: What do/did you get paid? Did you think it was fair?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We only let my family babysit, and they never ask for money. My kids are just not comfortable staying with anyone else (except when my daughter goes to preschool.) And because of her particular challenges, I don't really feel that most teenagers would be able to handle my three-year-old alone.
When I babysat as a teenager and young adult, I charged $10/hr., which was the going rate in the area, but after midnight my rate jumped to $20/hr. I had to make that policy because I had one client who said she'd be back by 11:30 and then would stay out until 2.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Where were you a teenager, and how long ago was this?
I didn't really have a rate, and most people paid me more than I expected.
I pay my daughter $1 to watch the 7 year old, who is very little trouble, and $3 for both 7 and 3 year old (which is pretty much only if we go on a date.) But my daughter is only 11, when she's "legal" I'll have to compete with the market, I suspect.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was a teenager in an upscale part of L.A. and I stopped babysitting when I got married at age 20, which was 4 years ago.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(I should add that that rate was for up to 3 kids under 10. If there were more kids under 10, I charged a bit more. Kids over 10 were usually more help than hindrance so I didn't charge extra for them unless there was a problem child.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and when I was younger I started out charging a bit less-- $8/hr. That went up as the general rate went up that everyone else got. And some parents paid me more, like the infant triplets I watched.)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
The strategy most of my friends used was to charge an unusually low amount - $5-7/hour - and spend any time not actively watching the children doing housework, e.g. vacuuming and doing dishes. This usually netted them extravagant tips (we're talking $100+), so their pay averaged out to about $25 an hour.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Back in the early 90s, I probably made about $3-5 an hour. (This was when the minimum wage was $4.25, I believe.) I was delighted with this, because I generally only took jobs with one family, who had a kid I really liked. It was easy work. I played with her, read her a bedtime story, and put her to bed, usually within 2-3 hours of getting there, and then the rest of the time I did homework or read books. (They went out pretty frequently, too--I probably worked for them at least once a month, and sometimes more often.)
I'm about to have a baby, so I've been thinking of how much I'd be willing/able to pay. (I have no idea what the market will actually bear around here.) I think I'd probably be willing to give an older teenager $20 or so for 2-3 hours of work. That would probably give us enough time to go out for a leisurely dinner.
But what do I know. I'm sure you'll hear from some people who are actually paying babysitters right now.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Minimum wage was actually $3.25 when I was a teen, and my first "real" job even screwed me out of that. So I quit, which probably wasn't the most productive way to react.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Minimum wage was almost $6.50 when I was a teen, and was well past that by the time I had my first job.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I don't hire baby-sitters because we can't afford them.
The good one...the one we like...charges $8 an hour. She's a college student with about 8 years of experience.
The high school girl in the area charge less -- maybe 4 or 5 dollars an hour, but I'm not comfortable with them. I don't know any of them well.
We also don't have any family in the area and have had trouble convincing people that trading kids on weekend nights would be a good idea. So, bottom line, we don't get out much. Sigh....
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The strategy most of my friends used was to charge an unusually low amount - $5-7/hour - and spend any time not actively watching the children doing housework, e.g. vacuuming and doing dishes. This usually netted them extravagant tips (we're talking $100+), so their pay averaged out to about $25 an hour.
On the whole that sounds like a pretty clever way of going about things. Did they ever have people react negatively to the cleaning, though?
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
My younger daughter goes to an in-home babysitter after school until I get home. The sitter's rate for us is $2.50 an hour and she also cares for 4 much younger kids full-day (at a higher rate for more involved care, I assume, but I've never actually asked).
I occasionally babysit for a friend that has two young kids (ages 4 and 2), and he pays me (and all his sitters, actually) $10 an hour. He's in a kind of remote area, though, so I'm sure he's taking travel into consideration.
Up until about 10 years ago, I had another family I babysat for (and had done so for nearly a decade by the time they moved away). I started with them at $10 an hour with the kids at ages 3 and 1 and ended up at $7 for 13 and 11. Considering the ages and the vast difference in how much I needed to do, though, the lower rate seemed fair.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I started babysitting for $.50 an hour. $1 for holidays. But the minimum wage then was a dollar an hour, so please don't use my experience in making your offer now.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
Daycare is $4 an hour, per kid at the place across the street from my work where all the postdocs go. I don't know where the faculty take their kids (postdocs get paid significantly less then faculty). So, I knew a woman who babysits a kid every day and was complaining about $4 an hour and the rest of the women were saying they wouldn't do it for less then $10. I thought that $4 was reasonable and I would just sign up for daycare rather then pay more then twice as much. But for a one time thing, higher pay makes sense. I currently trade off with a friend. Unfortuantely, my three closest friends are all moving in 6-8 months, so I may have to eventually hire a babysitter or make some new friends to replace them. Friends with tools, cause those three also have all the power tools I borrow. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: On the whole that sounds like a pretty clever way of going about things. Did they ever have people react negatively to the cleaning, though?
Not that I know of, though if I remember correctly they deliberately avoided doing anything where methodology matters significantly (e.g. doing laundry, putting things away). It makes sense to me that they wouldn't see many negative reactions, since if you're willing to trust a person with the exclusive, unsupervised care of your child, you're likely willing to trust that person to accomplish basic household tasks.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That is cheap, cheap daycare. Wow.
Daycare is mostly charged by the day around here, not the hour. Our daughter goes to a very cheap (but good) in-home preschool/daycare that charges $30/day (but you have to sign up by the month, and then you get charged even for the days your kid doesn't go; for instance, our 2 day/wk. program is $240/mo. whether she goes two days a week or skips some, and no matter how many hours per day she goes. Preschools/daycares with more overhead such as rent, etc. charge more.
If you get a babysitter, your rate is more likely to be around $10-$15/hr. here. Nannies more. That's just the way it is. Teenagers may charge a little less, but usually just on the low end of that range.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I babysat mostly for between $5-$10 Canadian. This was in the last six, seven years. I worked for a couple of bucks less that minimum wage, even when I was experienced.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
These are religious ones. Amazing how for cheap day care, so many scientists are willing to have their kids do 15 minutes of religious study a day. One of them does list a $300 a year mantainance charge, which would have to be factored in.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Even religious daycares around here charge around $30-$35/day, and there's usually a 2- to 3-year waiting list to get in (they often hold spots for members of their congregations, and only have a 1- to 2-year waiting list for members.)
We kind of have a child care crisis around here.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
At $4 an hour, for 8 hours, that is $32 a day. So that is comparable. I am not sure of the waiting lists. One postdoc I talked to signed up 8 months ahead and got in. I am not sure if I will go that route when my friend moves, so I haven't signed up. I am also thinking of asking my boss if he is at the church I think he is (he said the big methodist one nearby and the one that I think of has a highly recommended daycare at the same price range that rarely get off the members list so if I go there, maybe he could bump me up- his wife is supposedly extremely active and social).
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Six years ago I babysat for one child at a rate of $20/hour. This was for a very wealthy family however (Silicon Valley rich) in a very expensive area. When I moved away to Germany the mom gave me a nice Palm as a gift (she was an exec at the company).
I need a gig like that again.
(Granted, the kid was completely spoiled and hyperactive.)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
My usual fee was about $10 an hour. But this was a family that I knew very well and they really liked me. It was also 3 kids, and I went 3 times a week. I wish I could still babysit for them, but they're all too old now to need a babysitter.
Posted by DeathofBees (Member # 3862) on :
I just took time off from doing private nanny gigs in the Piedmont Triad area of NC. I was making $8/hr caring for a 2-year-old and doing some light housework (loading the dishwasher, vacuuming the rec room, etc.). I think I could have gotten a higher rate except that I brought along my own 2-year-old son and they provided snacks, so I figured $8 was pretty fair.
Shameless plug: I'm actually going to be looking for more childcare work soon, if there's anyone in my area who may need a nanny or even an occasional sitter. As I mentioned, I have a 2-year-old and I just had a baby in September. They're part of the package and go everywhere with me, but I'll gladly care for your kids in your home or mine. E-mail me.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Too bad you're so far away. That's a little less than what we pay our nanny, and we're probably going to be looking again in September. Our last nanny brought her 3-year old along and that worked out great. We provided snacks and lunch -- I pushed the snacks, because when she brought snacks for her kid she fed him junk and I didn't want that example once our little guy was old enough to compare. So I made sure we always had healthy, fun snacks on hand. The only housekeeping we ask is to keep the nursery reasonably tidy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: The strategy most of my friends used was to charge an unusually low amount - $5-7/hour - and spend any time not actively watching the children doing housework, e.g. vacuuming and doing dishes. This usually netted them extravagant tips (we're talking $100+), so their pay averaged out to about $25 an hour.
See I did this on the first of many babysitting visits for a particular family. They didn't tip me for it, and in fact came to expect it of me every time I visited. The parents started coming home later and later then they originally indicated when they'd call me.
Finally one night they came home something like two hours late just because they were having a good time and I forgot to put their groceries in the fridge. They told me off and I felt horrible for spoiling their milk. They never hired me again after that. Now that I think about it, it wasn't really worth the $6.50 they were paying me an hour.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
My almost-fifteen year old gets around $15 an hour. She does usually get tips as well. She cooks, cleans up the kitchen, and bathes the kids and puts them to bed.
She's an extremely responsible young lady, excellent student, and certified in CPR and first aid. She could probably get more, but she only babysits for church members and family friends and doesn't want to charge a whole lot. She looks at it as a fun evening for her, she loves kids, and when they get to bed she gets a quiet house to herself to read or watch TV. That's something that is hard to come by in our house with seven people living in it, and it's always loud and active until late at night, since the hubby and I don't normally get in bed until after midnight. So my daughter loves babysitting, if only for the escape from her own chaotic home. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I got tips sometimes.
I also stopped babysitting for people from church (with a few exceptions, the ones who accepted my rates without question) because they were used to paying the young women from church a few dollars an hour and expected me to lower my rates for them.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
When I was a teen back in the 80s it was ~$2/hour. Hearing about babysitting rates now, I realize that the parents in our town were in collusion to keep down our wages... Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Good grief! My sisters were teens in the 80s and one of them bought her first car, the other a scooter, mainly with what they saved from babysitting wages from age 14 on. Babysitting rates here have ALWAYS been a few dollars more than minimum wage (except for the aforementioned people who pay the young women less because they are drafted into service by their parents so that sister so-and-so can go to her Relief Society functions or the parents can go to the Temple.) Of course, you are expected to be competent, including observing dietary restrictions unique to each child, following house rules regarding tv (most parents allow a little bit more than usual when babysitters are there, but still), keeping the house from becoming a disaster zone, and the children being entertained enough to tell their parents so, etc. And most of us were Red Cross certified in CPR and first aid, and many had taken babysitter training and/or child development courses. But I'd say most competent teenagers could handle that, and I definitely intend to pay the going rate to any teenagers I ever hire to watch my children (which might be none, since, as I said, my kids prefer to stay with family only and that is what I am most comfortable with as well.)
Posted by RackhamsRazor (Member # 5254) on :
When I was 12-15ish (about 7-10 yrs ago) I got paid about 5-8 dollars an hour. Sometimes it was worth it, other times, it did not seem like enough. I had one family that had two great girls and that was not so bad. However, there was a family of four that I had to watch from about 8-5 every so often. The kids ranged in age from about 2-7. Getting paid $60-65 for a whole day never seemed like enough since I had to make lunch, sometimes dinner, clean up the house after the kids if I couldn't trick them into it, and entertain them since they were only allowed 1 hr of TV per day.
I would expect the going rate to be $10-15/hr for someone who is younger or in highschool and around $20/hr for a student with more experience.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I pay about $3 per hour per child.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
We pay, for our two children (4 years, 18 months) about $10-15/hour. We usually recruit from the 12-18 year-old girls from church. We live near Boston, so I imagine our rates (as with most everything related to cost of living in this area) are about 1.25 times the national average.
Posted by DeathofBees (Member # 3862) on :
quote:Originally posted by RackhamsRazor: Getting paid $60-65 for a whole day never seemed like enough since I had to make lunch, sometimes dinner, clean up the house after the kids if I couldn't trick them into it, and entertain them since they were only allowed 1 hr of TV per day.
Wait...my kids aren't allowed any TV per day, and I have to make breakfast, too! Where's my $65?? Ah, what I do for love.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't hire babysitters, but $20 an hour seems ridiculous to me. Of course, I only make $12 an hour so that colors my viewpoint a lot.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
I paid $5/hr for the first kid and an additional $1/hr for each other kid. A total of $8/hr.
Now I live around family. FREE BABYSITTING!
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
We had a friend when our first baby was born. He is three now. We used a baby sitter for a bout 5 hours a day for a year and a half. She lived close, was a friend, and charged $2.50/hour. My wife now stays at home.
Our first born is now 3 and we have a new baby. We use family if we want to go on a date.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I agree about people from church paying less.
That really concerns me, because it completely belies the message that taking care of children is respectable work that is worth a woman's time. If it is apparently crap work that is only worth $3 an hour, how you can say with a straight face than it's something an intelligent adult should be respected for doing?
Since I believe that is it IS vitally important and definitely worthy of respect, then it bugs the crap out of me that it's compensated at half of minimum wage and thrust upon young women in the church as if it were their duty to be a free source of labor for anyone who'd call on them and then get no respect for it.
There's a serious disconnect between the messages sent in Young Women's and the messages sent by exploiting the young women.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it is apparently crap work that is only worth $3 an hour, how you can say with a straight face than it's something an intelligent adult should be respected for doing?
Because, to start with:
1) Babysitting is very different than parenting or providing day care.
2) It is often done in situations where the children are in bed for more than half the time. Certainly, this was true in the vast majority of my babysitting jobs.
3) Many young teenagers find it to be a preferable way to make money even at a lower rate than many other jobs available to them, especially when 2 is taken into account.
4) Paying $3 an hour is not the same as saying it's "crap work."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You have failed to take into account the accompanying messages and you have falsely assumed that longer periods are compensated at a higher rate. You have failed to take into account context and do not have a reasonable view of the subject.
I have no interest in your views on this subject.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You have failed to take into account the accompanying messages
No, I haven't.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote: When I was a teen back in the 80s it was ~$2/hour.
Same for me and that wasn't per kid. Now I pay my preteen daughter $5/hour to babysit her two younger siblings and my son $2/hour to "babysit" the dog. Before we left them in charge, we paid anywhere from $7-10/hour for a teenager.
(ETA These are my thoughts in response to Javert Hugo's post.) When I babysat, it was for extra fun money. I don't see that teenagers need to be paid as if it were their career. I think the message to teenagers can still be that nurturing children is important without paying them an arm and a leg. There were many years where my husband and I couldn't afford a babysitter and didn't live near family so we weren't able to go out on a date (read that to mean: be alone together). I do think that adults who choose to babysit should be paid more than the going rate for teenagers.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I think circumstances should be taken into account, but I also think there is a serious problem when the exact people who pride themselves on valuing family and raising children and that intelligent women should dedicate their working years to it are the same people who pay the least and are offended at the idea of treating day care like a real job that should earn at least minimum wage.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
quote: offended at the idea of treating day care like a real job that should earn at least minimum wage
That I definitely agree with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: and you have falsely assumed that longer periods are compensated at a higher rate.
No, I haven't.
quote:You have failed to take into account context
No, I haven't.
quote: and do not have a reasonable view of the subject.
Yes, I do.
quote:I have no interest in your views on this subject.
I don't particularly care. That's certainly not going to stop me from commenting on posts in this public forum, whether they're yours or somebody else's.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:There were many years where my husband and I couldn't afford a babysitter and didn't live near family so we weren't able to go out on a date (read that to mean: be alone together).
I agree that it's important for a couple to be alone together, but I'm disturbed by the suggestion that other people should be paid less than minimum wage in order to make this possible. It isn't the responsibility of the local teenagers to subsidize the time of the adults in the neighborhood.
It's like going to a nice restaurant and lowballing the tip in order to make that possible. It isn't the server's responsibility to make the trip to the restaurant possible.
I think there's a bit of community deal going on here, because I know especially in the Church at least that the entire structure and function of the ward is done on volunteer time, almost completely by the adults, and that in family wards a huge chunk of that time is spent serving the children.
I can even agree that it's fair for the teenagers to return the favors (but only if both sexes are included). The problem is that the adult volunteer time is usually done in an official setting, and the teenager volunteer time is done in a semi-subsized private setting on a one-by-one basis. The presentation of the obligation matters.
If it had ever been presented as flat-out service, then I wouldn't mind - service is fun, and I was a fan of the community. When it was presented as my duty as a girl to be paid half of what my brother got paid to do his duty as a guy, it looked like flaming hypocrisy and treating girls' labor like second class.
That's a serious problem.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I also think there is a serious problem when the exact people who pride themselves on valuing family and raising children and that intelligent women should dedicate their working years to it are the same people who pay the least and are offended at the idea of treating day care like a real job that should earn at least minimum wage.
Are we talking about day care or babysitting? There's a big difference between the two.
Knowing which we're discussing will change the way that I respond to this post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:the suggestion that other people should be paid less than minimum wage in order to make this possible.
The suggestion is that other people who are willing to take less than minimum wage to make this possible can do so, and when they do, the person paying them isn't committing a moral wrong.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Are we talking about day care or babysitting? There's a big difference between the two.
Scott, can you tell me why you see a big difference between the two?
One thing that has been mentioned by a few people is that there is a big difference between parenting and babysitting. I agree that they are different. I don't think they are so different that meaningful comparisons of how they are valued are impossible.
It doesn't follow that parenting is hard, wonderful, valuable work and babysitting is easy cheesy work that deserves less than minimum wage.
I have this scenario in my head - do parents ever end the day and think "Today I was a parent. Yay! Today was a good day." or "Today I was a just a babysitter. The kids are warm, fed, and alive, but no real parenting took place. Today was a pathetic day."
If not, under that rubric, why not? I love parents and I believe it's valuable, but it's hardly true that every day is a banner day competely distinguishable from what would have had happened if a ("lowly, low-paid") day care worker had been in charge.
I want to make it clear that I am NOT disrespecting parents. Rather, I think that since taking care of children is something worthy of respect, it should be compensated accordingly when the work is contracted out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The suggestion is that other people who are willing to take less than minimum wage to make this possible can do so, and when they do, the person paying them isn't committing a moral wrong.
I don't know about "moral wrong." I think there's a lot of squishyworks that goes into that equation-- too many to make such a judgment easy.
But it's definitely not correct to take advantage of a child because of their lack of experience in handling financial matters. (Nonetheless, Belle's daughter earing $15/hour? Wow! Good for her, but I'd never use her because she is too expensive)
I don't think kat's premise that the care of children and family is devalued by low babysitting wages is entirely correct; I think that most people don't look that deeply into the subject to make that connection, so it's not a considered conclusion.
Here's what concerns me about babysitting: that many people, especially in church groups, knowingly take advantage of girls under the premise that babysitting is a teenage girls' responsibility to members of her community, and that pay is either definitely too low, or non existent. I think the market generally takes care of such cases, but may not always.
In short, Dagonee's answer is too capitalistic for my comfort, and kat's is too strident.
:pies them both:
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I don't think kat's premise that the care of children and family is devalued by low babysitting wages is entirely correct; I think that most people don't look that deeply into the subject to make that connection, so it's not a considered conclusion.
I don't think it is conciously planned or decided, but I think the conclusions are inescapable. There is definitely a disconnect between how it is purported to be valued and how it is actually compensated.
In other words, if we actually believe that as a group, why the reluctance to put our money where our mouth is?
quote:Here's what concerns me about babysitting: that many people, especially in church groups, knowingly take advantage of girls under the premise that babysitting is a teenage girls' responsibility to members of her community, and that pay is either definitely too low, or non existent. I think the market generally takes care of such cases, but may not always.
I agree with this completely. The market doesn't take care of it because 1)there is collusion between the parents of the teenage girls and the parents of the to-be-babysat, and 2) the teenage girls do not have sufficient resources or savvy or power to make the reasonable demands necessary to make the market work.
The market can create fairness in price, but only if it is really free.
-------
"strident"? What does that mean?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In short, Dagonee's answer is too capitalistic for my comfort, and kat's is too strident.
My answer is not capitalistic. Rather, my answer is grounded in individualism (again, I would happily babysit at 1/5 the hourly wages compared to what I could make mowing lawns, and this opportunity would not have been available to me at the higher price, at least with my biggest client).
I am in favor of intervention in the market - say by the babysitters' parents - to force higher wages than the market itself would provide in situations where it's truly exploitative. And, if the parents aren't looking out for their kids in this way, then I think there is a problem. But it's a different problem than the one being addressed. It's a problem with educating children to assert themselves appropriately.
As a general matter, I think this far too often taught poorly or not at all. And one of the consequences of this not being taught well is that our society often expects other people to treat teenagers in a more paternalistic fashion. Sometimes in ways that requires second guessing what the teenager actually says he wants to do.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: "strident"? What does that mean?
It means I think you're judging people who disagree with you a bit unfairly.
quote:I think the conclusions are inescapable. There is definitely a disconnect between how it is purported to be valued and how it is actually compensated.
Except that the jobs being evaluated are nothing alike in terms of degree.
quote:why the reluctance to put our money where our mouth is?
Because money is dirty, and if you put it in your mouth, you'll get canker sores. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The flippancy is funny, but it doesn't address the issue. This issue really bothers me, and I think the traditionally low wages and low value placed on the work really subverts the messages sent in church. I actually believe the messages sent in church, but I believe them in spite of the traditional way girls are treated. It would awfully nice to be able to believe them because of the way girls are treated.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you don't want to address the flippancy (I don't blame you), address the topic-- that babysitting != daycare != parenting, and thus, is not subject to social strictures of equal compensation.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I agree that parenting is different from the other two, but day care and babysitting look the same to me.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Daycare, to me, implies a certain level of accreditation-- CPR, education, etc. It also implies length of time of the activity, quality and frequency of the experience, and a higher maturity level of the individual taking care of the children.
Babysitting implies a casual, non-educational experience, by a trusted, untrained individual.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It looks, then, that you're defining the two activities as different because they are done by people with different qualifications, not because the work itself is different.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Not at all. I mention frequency of the experience, quality of the experience, and length of time of the experience.
Those imply that the work the two individuals are doing is different.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Could you share some details as to how the work is different?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Frequency:
Daycare: Care is given a daily, or scheduled basis
Babysitting: Care is given as requested
Quality:
Daycare: Daycare providers are typically expected to provide both age appropriate educational and entertainment opportunities to children; they are required to have their own facility and equipment meeting state-mandated safety standards.
Babysitting: Culturally, few expectations of educational opportunities. Babysitters are typically expected to keep the children safe.
Length of Time:
Daycare: Anywhere from 2-12 hours.
Babysitting: Typically less than 8 hours.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
In one the caretaker is an important part of the child's life, and is expected to help foster learning in the child, as well as presenting the child with novel experiences that expand his understanding of the world.
In the other, the caretaker is a substitute for the parents for a short time, and is only expected to look after the child's physical needs & keep the child entertained for a short amount of time.
To give an example: if they have them, parents typically relax their rules about TV and/or video games for babysitters; most daycares are expected to show no television to the children.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Daycare: Daycare providers are typically expected to provide both age appropriate educational and entertainment opportunities to children; they are required to have their own facility and equipment meeting state-mandated safety standards.
Babysitting: Culturally, few expectations of educational opportunities. Babysitters are typically expected to keep the children safe.
These are an example. I don't the other examples as arguments for paying less than minimum wage. Because something is done infrequently is not a reason to pay little when it is done. In fact, the irregularity of the work means it should pay more because of the uncertainty inherent. If you call my dad's shop and request a one-off job, it'll cost at least $130 for a set up fee and then probably a dollar a so a part. If you say you'll bring in ten boxes with a thousand parts each for three months, then it'll be pennies a part.
It looks like in babysitting, the goal is to have children that are alive at the end of the evening and that's it.
Housecleaning shouldn't be included, because housecleaning by itself doesn't pay so little.
However, if the goal of babysitting is nothing but keeping the children alive and possibly not burn down the house, then parents shouldn't take advantage of the "this is practice for parenting" rhetoric that makes paying so little possible, because it clearly isn't practice for parenting.
If parenting is qualitatively and quantitavely different from babysitting, then you may as well try to pass off maintaining a website as practice for parenting.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:if the goal of babysitting is nothing but keeping the children alive and possibly not burn down the house, then parents shouldn't take advantage of the "this is practice for parenting" rhetoric that makes paying so little possible, because it clearly isn't practice for parenting.
Agreed. It's like sticking the newlyweds in charge of the nursery (young children's ministry) in order to "Give them experience with children."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:if the goal of babysitting is nothing but keeping the children alive and possibly not burn down the house, then parents shouldn't take advantage of the "this is practice for parenting" rhetoric that makes paying so little possible, because it clearly isn't practice for parenting.
Agreed. It's like sticking the newlyweds in charge of the nursery (young children's ministry) in order to "Give them experience with children."
I have always been willing to suck it up in order to get a job done that needs to be done. However, I have finally gotten to the point where I am unwilling to collude in the rationalization farce to make less of myself.
Call it what it is. I'm being asked to do something in order to make other people's lives easier and that doesn't really benefit me in some magical, spurious way? Fine. But let's both acknowledge it up front, and we can both remember that when it comes time for future negotiations.
Nothing pushes my buttons like feeling coerced to choke something down for my own good when it isn't for my own good, it's primarily (or at least in good part) for someone else's good. I don't mind the work, but I do mind the mass soothing delusion.
[/er, still kinda bitter, apparently ]
---
Edited to add: One of the best pieces of professional development advice I ever got was that a mentor should always acknowledge up front what his or her vested interests are (and there are always vested interests). This is relevant for those seeking mentorship and those giving it -- at this stage in my life, I occupy both roles. The only worthwhile thing to remember from that conference, but it stuck.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Nothing pushes my buttons like feeling coerced to choke something down for my own good when it isn't for my own good, it's for someone else's good. I don't mind the work, but I do mind the mass soothing delusion.
Claudia Therese, this is it exactly.
I really think it would be better to just admit that it's expected as service and that the teenagers are being used.
If it's presented as service, though, teenagers are able to feel like they are part of community and become more invested in the community itself. That's a very different result from what happens when teenagers (and by this I obviously mean myself) realize that they have been taken advantage of and ripped off by the very people who teach and pretend to believe something quite different.
However, presenting it as service would also require giving up a little respect and gratitude. $3 an hour is juuust enough to feel like an employer instead of a fellow-community-member but not so much that the person receiving it deserves any respect.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: I really think it would be better to just admit that it's expected as service and that the teenagers are being used.
Yup. And we (as a community) owe them a lot for it, including the respect you mentioned. That sacrifice should be acknowledged as social capital, and it should be able to be drawn on. It is a debt that is owed to them. That debt can be repaid in many ways -- mentoring, assistance in getting an education, facillitating their own vacations, and/or money, of course -- but some people fool themselves into thinking that they are doing the teenager a favor. Under these conditions, it isn't a favor -- or at least, it surely isn't just a favor to them, but they are doing at least as great a favor to those who employ them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but not so much that the person receiving it deserves any respect.
When I received inflation-comparable amounts to $3 and hour (less, actually) both I and my employer felt as if I deserved respect - and they treated me that way.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:but not so much that the person receiving it deserves any respect.
When I received inflation-comparable amounts to $3 and hour (less, actually) both I and my employer felt as if I deserved respect - and they treated me that way.
I wonder if the respect issue may have gender trends. I don't think there is any way to conclusively determine that, but it would be interesting to ask around informally.
---
Edited to add: I suspect that when girls work for a low wage, it may be expected of them, and it may be generally taken for granted that they should be not only willing but happy to do this.
A boy working for the same wage at certain jobs might -- might? -- get more social strokes for even being willing to do it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As a general rule, I suffered in the respect issue based on being male. Some parents refused to hire me - one couple canceled their date when I showed up and they realized I was a boy (I went by "Bobby" then and they had only heard my name spoken, not met me).
That's not to say I didn't sometimes benefit from being male in the respect department. I don't know either way with respect to my clients. I do know that the boys I babysat had fairly strong feelings about having a boy babysitter - possibly because their previous babysitter had refused to play Masters of Universe with them.
I definitely benefited from being assertive.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No kidding, CT. The example of how a teenage boy is treated is not evidence in the question of how teenage girls are treated.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I usually got paid 5$/hr, through the 1990s. Usually I was with only one or two children, and I asked a bit more if there were more kids. The exception was a close family friend who had five of the most delightful and well-behaved children I have ever met. I loved being there and I knew they didn't have a lot of money, so I was quite content with 5$.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Javert Hugo,
I think one thing that may need clarification is that you are approaching it from specificially the LDS Church, cultural-ish (not doctrine) experience/expectations, that do somes seem to be in contrast with the doctrine.
I think that the LDS background needs to be stipulated when you say "church" because I don't think it can necessarily be generalized to a variety of different denomominations or church cultures. It also appears that sometimes the geographic "social-secular" culture (like in SoCal) does morph the expectations compared to what might be generally acceptable in many other parts of the "church culture".
I also think that the secular culture may accept similar ideas the less urbanized that secular culture is, because the supply - demand - tenager - parent - babysitting - finance dialouge tends to be radically differently arranged in a less urban environment than in a more urban environment.
AJ
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No kidding, CT. The example of how a teenage boy is treated is not evidence in the question of how teenage girls are treated.
I'm sure you could find an all-girls forum somewhere to discuss this if you want to limit participation by the boys.
Moreover, it's certainly evidence concerning attitudes about the type of work. It's also evidence that more than the amount of money is relevant.
You'll also note that I didn't say that it refuted. You've posted your personal experiences as relevant to the discussion. I'll continue to do so as long as they are relevant.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(edit added as above)
---
[Edited to add for context:]
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As a general rule, I suffered in the respect issue based on being male. Some parents refused to hire me - one couple canceled their date when I showed up and they realized I was a boy (I went by "Bobby" then and they had only heard my name spoken, not met me).
That's not to say I didn't sometimes benefit from being male in the respect department. I don't know either way with respect to my clients. I do know that the boys I babysat had fairly strong feelings about having a boy babysitter - possibly because their previous babysitter had refused to play Masters of Universe with them.
*nods
I bet there are a majority of parents who wouldn't hire a boy to do childwork. But when someone is willing to hire it -- i.e., when the transaction involving the kid's own time and resources is put on the line -- there may well be a lot of additional appreciation, respect, and social credit that comes with the money. (This sounds right to me, but my little ranting-self bias is admittedly quite skewed.)
*grin
Which is, of course, as it should be for everyone anyway.
---
Also added:
quote:I definitely benefited from being assertive.
For sure, and it's to your credit. I think that's a hard lesson for most kids to learn, regardless of gender. I also think there are certain socialization norms in place that may make it a lot harder for girls (especially in particular contexts) to do it, thought that may make the lesson al the more important to learn.
But as long as someone else is deriving measurable and significant benefit from offering those girls the "learning experience," I think the details of the transaction (and all the unstated assumptions that come with it) should be kept as thorough and transparent as possible.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Edited to add: I suspect that when girls work for a low wage, it may be expected of them, and it may be generally taken for granted that they should be not only willing but happy to do this.
A boy working for the same wage at certain jobs might -- might? -- get more social strokes for even being willing to do it.
I have two older sisters whose experience is very similar to mine.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Edited to add: I suspect that when girls work for a low wage, it may be expected of them, and it may be generally taken for granted that they should be not only willing but happy to do this.
A boy working for the same wage at certain jobs might -- might? -- get more social strokes for even being willing to do it.
I have two older sisters whose experience is very similar to mine.
Awesome. I'm glad that as far as you know, two girls did not get the thinner edge of the wedge. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That sounds snarky, especially with the smiley! But I meant it sincerely.
I don't think that rules out the possibility that girls in general [which is more what I meant than categorically "the set of all girls," but I should have been more precise] suffer from this, or that girls in other families/subgroups/contexts might. Of course, that isn't what you are claiming, and of course, I am very glad your sisters seem to have had good experiences. That is, indeed, fantastic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Are people talking a lack of respect other than the low wages? I have problems seeing parents who care leaving their kids in the care of someone they didn't respect.
Also, on the babysitting doesn't equal parenting thing: I agree that it isn't anywhere near equal, but it does (or at least could) provide some valuable experience and practice. Experience A doesn't have to be the exact analog to experience B to prepare someone for it - The Karate Kid taught us that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Are people talking a lack of respect other than the low wages? I have problems seeing parents who care leaving their kids in the care of someone they didn't respect.
Mmmm, might be different uses of the term "respect" here.
I'd be using something more like "thinks is admirable for going above and beyond what the general community should be expecting of him/her, and doing it with good grace" rather than "a nice kid who is capable of making sure my kids are kept safe."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I understand you, you are saying that babysitters should be praised or looked up to for what they do?
It's hard to say, not having done it myself - except on a non-paid basis for family members, but it doesn't sound like a big sacrifice. I'm not sure why babysitters would deserve more than other teenagers who do responsible work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: That sounds snarky, especially with the smiley! But I meant it sincerely.
I don't think that rules out the possibility that girls in general [which is more what I meant than categorically "the set of all girls," but I should have been more precise] suffer from this, or that girls in other families/subgroups/contexts might. Of course, that isn't what you are claiming
Thank you for getting that. I think focusing on the money aspect sells a lot of kids short and paints too broad a brush across a lot of people who hire babysitters. I realize you weren't focusing on money.
I think much of this relates to teaching childen to be assertive - something many parents don't do well for their sons and many do even worse for their daughters.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If I understand you, you are saying that babysitters should be praised or looked up to for what they do?
It's hard to say, not having done it myself - except on a non-paid basis for family members, but it doesn't sound like a big sacrifice. I'm not sure why babysitters would deserve more than other teenagers who do responsible work.
For what they do, given what they get back for it? Yup, I do.
Certainly YMMV, and I am not troubled by that. (Nor are you, I suspect. )
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: do parents ever end the day and think "Today I was a parent. Yay! Today was a good day." or "Today I was a just a babysitter. The kids are warm, fed, and alive, but no real parenting took place. Today was a pathetic day."
I wouldn't put it in precisely those terms, but YES!
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, on the babysitting doesn't equal parenting thing: I agree that it isn't anywhere near equal, but it does (or at least could) provide some valuable experience and practice.
Agreed. No one ever paid me less for babysitting "because it was good practice" (nor would I have stood for it if they did), but it was part (a small part) of the calculus that helped me determine that I would start taking babysitting jobs. Wanting to make money and not having any interest in most of the alternatives was a much bigger part.
I don't understand why separating out the "paid job" aspects and the "kindness (or service, if you prefer) to others" is such a big deal. I try to keep kindness to others in mind in all my activities, paid and otherwise. And I doubt any of you are suggesting otherwise. When I was a teen babysitter, I had a second (lower) rate for kolel families. (Since kolel families are primarily living on a small stipend, money tends to be considerably tighter.) No one demanded -- or even asked -- that I do this, but it was common among my friends who babysat regularly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:If it had ever been presented as flat-out service, then I wouldn't mind - service is fun, and I was a fan of the community. When it was presented as my duty as a girl to be paid half of what my brother got paid to do his duty as a guy, it looked like flaming hypocrisy and treating girls' labor like second class.
This is an intriguing thought. I have a really hard time asking a teenager to watch my kids for free. If I felt comfortable doing that for things like temple trips and other church service, I might be more willing to pay higher wages for fun time with Porter. It never crossed my mind that it might be more insulting to the babysitter to pay her something meager than to pay her nothing at all.
In the LDS church, women are strongly encouraged to not work out of the home. This usually means less wages and less money to spend on childcare of any kind. It has always made sense to me that such a culture would pay less for babysitting because they can afford less. That the youth are willing to do it for less is a part of the "service" and being part of the community.
I don't think it places a lower value on childcare so much as it allows better childcare to happen in the first place (moms in the home.)
[ November 20, 2007, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Again bev, maybe everyone already knows but I don't like assuming so, and think a clarification adjective such as "LDS" would be useful when you say "the church".
quote:In the [LDS] church, women are strongly encouraged to not work out of the home.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think rivka's post illustrates how it might be looked at differently from different religious standpoints as far as "service" goes.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: I really think it would be better to just admit that it's expected as service and that the teenagers are being used.
I'm OK with the first part of the sentance, but not the second. Does someone being expected to serve equal being used? That makes me very uncomfortable.
Yes, in the LDS community the young women are typically expected to babysit in at least a partial service capacity. This is only unfair if there is no similar expectation on young men.
Do Boy Scouts in the church typically give the same amount of unpaid service time as young women in the Personal Progress program? I don't know enough. I could make a case that we expect more unpaid service of our young men than young women, seeing as the young men are more likely to participate in home teaching, church set-up, fast-offering collection and the like. What sort of message does that send? Men ought to serve without any monetary compensation, but young women should be compensated at least a little because that is typical of the norm?
You've elsewhere compared babysitting to mowing lawns. Do young men in the church sometimes mow lawns for free as a service? Might they even be asked to do so? That ought to be taken into consideration here. Probably people are ashamed to ask young men to mow lawns for free or even cheap because lawns aren't an intrinsic part of LDS doctrine.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Sorry, Banna. Fixed. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:lawns aren't an intrinsic part of LDS doctrine.
...but moving people is. To my everlasting regret as a man.
[ November 20, 2007, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Does someone being expected to serve equal being used? That makes me very uncomfortable.
Agreed.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
That's it. From now on, all my babysitters get no wage but warm fuzzies. Thank you, Kat, for making me see the error of my ways. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And the clear (implicit and explicit) space to turn down the offer without any hurt feelings, negative judgments about character, or other repercussions whatsoever? Perfect!
---
I don't blame the people who hired me as a babysitter for any current bitterness [that's thanks to medical reisdency], as the families were without fail all kind, loving, and very caring of my welfare. I insisted on working for less than was offered, but that's another issue.
They found ways to repay me in other venues, and they did so most creatively and respectfully. Bless them. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Thank you bev. It's just one of those things, where if Dagonee or Kate Boots says "the Church" I have to mentally insert the [Catholic] church, and if you say it I have to insert the [LDS] church, and if dkw were to say it (though she tends not to use it in as much of a monolithic sense) I'd have to insert the [United Methodist] church... and as the cultures of each are wildly varying it makes a difference.
I think each variety of church has a different nuance of interpretation towards the actual meaning of "service".
I also don't think in the context of this discussion "service" can be interpreted in a wholly secular "community service" dimension either.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Now we need to figure out how to leave warm fuzzies at tips.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Now we need to figure out how to leave warm fuzzies at tips.
And the clear (implicit and explicit) space to turn down the chance to serve you without any hurt feelings, negative judgments about character, or other repercussions whatsoever? Perfect!
(*tongue firmly in cheek )
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:From now on, all my babysitters get no wage but warm fuzzies
That would be fine - as long as you told them ahead of time, of course.
quote:That the youth are willing to do it for less
I sincerely doubt that the girls are thinking "My brother gets paid twice this for doing yard work, but since I'm just a girl and I don't get to work later for money, my time now is worth less than my brother's time. $3 an hour for me!"
More like the parents (collectively) thinking: "Why do I have to pay the babysitter minimum wage? She's a girl! Watching [strangers'] children is her purpose in life!"
That is not okay.
[ November 20, 2007, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That would be perfect.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Absolutely, CT. On the occasions I have called for a babysitter amongst the young women of the ward, I usually get turned down a lot anyway. It is really easy for a girl to say "sorry, I'm busy." And when she says so, I'm fully aware that she might simply be making an excuse because she doesn't want to babysit. It's like turning down a guy for a date. In a culture where guys do most of the asking, a women's got to learn to say "no" when the goods just aren't good enough.
At least when you are in a culture where low pay is the norm, you know what to expect and you can always say "no." If enough girls decline to accept babysitting, maybe the parents of that culture will raise the wages. Babysitters of Mormon Utah unite! Go on strike for better wages!
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:That would be fine - as long as you told them ahead of time, of course. [Smile]
Heck ya! Otherwise I would be pondscum.
quote:More like: "Why do I have to pay the babysitter minimum wage? She's a girl! Watching [strangers'] children is her purpose in life!"
Ewww. I hope the parents aren't thinking that. That certainly doesn't go through my mind.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: That would be perfect.
You know, I understand perfectly, and I agree.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Does someone being expected to serve equal being used?
Only if the terms are not clear - only when guilt or some sort of "good Mormon girls charge less" rubric is not being used against them.
This concerns me more because the babysitters are generally kids - since those hiring are adults, I think ther is a greater obligation on their parts to be fair. More "the strong protect the weak" and less "the strong use the weak as much as they can get away with."
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
For a more extreme example of the assumptions I think you are talking about Javert [Hugo].
I had a child under a year (not crawling yet but could sit up sorta) plunked down in front of me at a gathering of my boyfriend's familiy. The mother wished to go get some food. Steve said the look on my face was a priceless "What do I do with this THING?!" moment. (I'm not implying children are things, because they aren't, but it was an indication of how wholly unprepared I was for taking care of it at that lifestage)
It was ASSUMED that because I was a young female, I would know how to take care of the child properly. I did not, because I didn't realize that the kid was at the "barely sitting up" stage, because it seemed to be doing fine sitting up on its own. Until it flopped forward on its face and started crying. Fortunately the rug was soft. But I didn't know any better. I wasn't wishing the child ill, and had I known it needed more support I would have provided it.
No one has attempted to make me child-watch at Steve family gaterhing since.
Was the mother somewhat rude? At the time I would have said yes. But, it really depends on one's cultural assumptions and perspective. The assumption was made because I was a young female that I was competent at watching babies. And that's a pretty normal cultural assumption, in many parts of the U.S. which ties back directly back into the babysitting stereotype and subsequent valuation of the work.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What if I talked to my babysitter and said something like, "I understand that I am not paying you much. I understand that the going rate for what you are doing is quite a bit higher. I recognize that you are sacrificing to help me out. But I'd like to at least pay you something, it makes me feel better."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
In my general feeling, the people who are providing service to make an evening possible are the last places it is right to economize. So...maybe it depends on what else has been done to make the evening affordable - that paying the babysitter less isn't the first choice.
I say that because refusing a sentence like that would be very difficult for someone who did want to remain a good Mormon girl. But I think the sentence is great under the circumstances that you've considered the other options first.
It's like...it's like an airline company announcing a paycut for everyone but the top executives. Sure, it's understandable if the company is going under otherwise, but asking the baggage handlers to take a paycut before the executives isn't very cool.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
beverly, knowing you as I do, and knowing your body language and tone of voice, I would have been delighted to have had that conversation with you. I don't know where we would have ended up, but I would have felt I and my work were of real value and importance to you. I would have felt you saw me as an autonomous person worthy of respect, and I would have loved that.
It was a conversation I often had with the families I worked for, albeit with some indexical differences. The thought was the same, and it was treasured.
---
Edited to add: in (non-beverly) general, though, I have the same concerns as were just raised by Javert Hugo.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Banna, I think it's rude to expect anyone to do ANYTHING that's your job, without asking them for help first. So I definitely think that the mom was at least a little rude. Maybe she hadn't learned the "balance a child on one hip while only selecting food that can be picked up with one hand" maneuver yet.
edit: I also agree with kat(?). It's very wrong to skimp on the babysitting and tipping the waitress fairly in order to pay for the steak AND shrimp. (This coming from a disgruntled former waitress.)
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Well, considering that Porter and I rarely go out on dates (dates are usually watching our favorite show together at home) and that when we do get a babysitter for hire we are often spending little or no money on our outing, I'd say we probably meet the qualification.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay, a lot has happened in this thread...
I found that lack of pay did corellate to a percieved lack of respect.
Those who paid me less (or tried to), often members of the church, often criticized my rates, did not thank me for watching their children, did not seem to care what I did with their kids, etc.
Those who paid me what I expected universally thanked me every time I sat for them, told me what a wonderful time their kids always had with me, and were grateful that I gave a detailed summary of what happened while they were gone.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
PSI, I genuinely think in her cultural frame of reference (which is distinctly different than my own) it was ok, and she didn't even dream she was being rude. She was actually treating me as she would have treated any of her closer personal friends in the same situation or vice versa, and that it was an indication of acceptance, not a deliberate act of rudeness.
In her cultural frame of reference (which wasn't paricularly religious, just working class in the middle of nowhere Ohio) women had children, in or out of wedlock, and knew what to do around them, so that was why the kid was placed with me instead of Steve, who would have been far better qualified for the job.
AJ
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Banna, I think it's rude to expect anyone to do ANYTHING that's your job, without asking them for help first. So I definitely think that the mom was at least a little rude.
Agreed.
Personally, I've asked people of both sexes to watch a kid for a minute. But I always ask. (And if the response is an "Ok" accompanied by a panicked look, I find someone else.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Banna, that would be considered extremely, extremely rude in our family.
Of course, everyone in our family is always offering "I'll hold the baby while you..." and "Why don't you go... while I watch your kids for a few minutes?" (Including me! I love holding yummy babies.) So the situation rarely arises where the mom needs something and there is no one around offering to hold/watch the child. But when it does, we mothers ALWAYS find someone we know is capable and who looks otherwise encumbered and say, "I need to go... for a minute. Would you mind keeping an eye on/holding my kid(s) for a little bit? Thanks!"
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
*nod* I see her POV. I've never felt like that, though, so I can't sympathize as well as maybe I should. For me, I abhor asking people to take my kids, even for a sec. Of course, that may be because I abhor babysitting for other people. (Excepting tiny infants that still smell good.)
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, and ditto what rivka said. I am more likely to ask my Uncle Harry, for instance, than my Grandma Ronnie, because I know my Grandma Ronnie is too frail to physically remove a toddler from something she mustn't touch (although I let her hold my infants, no problem.) It doesn't matter what gender they are, so long as I know they are capable. Panicked looks mean "not capable" to me as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Panicked looks mean "not capable" to me as well.
I wouldn't say that. To me, they mean "I'm saying yes, but only because I can't see a graceful way of saying no." I'm not as against asking someone to watch my kid for a second as PSIT, but I do prefer that they be willing. Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thanks, CT, you are very kind.
This is a good conversation and makes me want to be more aware of how I treat the people who watch my kids. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
There are actually a couple of people that I don't mind having my kids for a second, but they are the grandparents. They are at least partly responsible for the kids because they are partly responsible for their existences. I didn't realize how much having someone babysit bothered me until my husband's mother (whom I love) had to call and ask ME if she could babysit. That's pretty bad.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Kat, I have a question for you. Do you think that in LDS culture we expect more unpaid service from young men than young women? Talking about this subject has brought it to my mind, and I think that we tend to expect this.
Basically, the idea of young women being willing to babysit for free as a service to the community is a nice idea and would help out a lot of families that are trying to live the doctrines of the LDS church. (Have kids. Have several. Have mom stay home with them even if it means trying to scrimp by on one salary. Go on dates as a married couple for the strength of your marriage. Go to the temple frequently. Provide service to the church in situations where kids shouldn't come.)
But in the current culture, would they be willing to when they know they could be paid, even if the pay is low?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I believe when one defines something as rude one has to look at least partially at intent, and that is why I'm not going to define the aforementioned mother as being rude.
I was trying to use this example as an illustration of cultural expectations towards child rearing/watching, that go right into the attitudes towards baby sitting. In some circles, the expectations of girls voluntarily desiring to watch children, is extremely strong. And there are many girls who do enjoy voluntarily watching children. But, it's when it goes from voluntary to "duty with a slice of guilt trip on the side if you don't watch sister so and so's kid" is when there are problems.
I realize now that I have cause to be greatful to my mother as a result of this discussion. My mother ran a pre-school class of three and four year olds on sunday evenings which ran concurrently with the sunday evening service. I didn't mind helping her prepare the crafts beforehand, but I got roped into helping her occasionally, if her other assistant couldn't make it. She absolutely loved teaching the class, but she saw exactly how insane it drove me, that I couldn't reason with the kids logically. Now that I think about it, I suspect a lot of people in that church probably thought I enjoyed helping my mother etc. etc, and only she knew exactly how much it frayed me, and she did try to spare me from doing it whenever she could.
AJ
In other words the "service" to that church was hers, and not mine, and she tried not to impose her "service" on me regardless of expectations.
Anyone who has seen me around kids on a regular basis, knows I'm not good with small children for extended amounts of time. When I taught swimming lessons they kept me away from the Mommie-and-Me classes and deliberately gave me the more advanced/older children. I was fabulous when teaching Adult Beginners, a class that very few other people could handle, but the little ones and I have never clicked well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: In other words the "service" to that church was hers, and not mine, and she tried not to impose her "service" on me regardless of expectations.
That's pretty awesome.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
When did this forum stop annotating that a post had been edited? (And is there a better word than "annotating"?)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't use babysitters because I cannot afford them. But, I think if I was a teenager (and when I was, I felt this way as well), I would figure that making $3 an hour was better then nothing. I knew that people in my neighborhood did not make a lot of money and that if I were to charge more, it would make the date outside of their budget and so wouldn't go. So, that's why I accepted the pay I got- it was better then not working. I wasn't the least bit offended when a family down the street paid me a dollar an hour for three kids(I didn't work for them again though cause their house was a complete pigsty and my whole body was covered in a rash at the end of the evening- couldn't pay me stay there another evening). However, I was annoyed when a family at church who drove nice new cars and lived in a big house asked me to tutor and was offended when I said I charged $8 an hour. My friends charged more than that. She found someone else in the ward who would do it as a service. I still think if you can live the lifestyle you do, then you don't need the discount.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: When did this forum stop annotating that a post had been edited? (And is there a better word than "annotating"?)
Quite a while ago-- only if the change is made in the first 10 minutes after the original post.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Ah. I haven't been around for a while.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
note: the particular church I am referring to was of the non-denominational fundamentalist Christian variety, but also located in Southern CA, which meant it often had more lenient cultural attitude than a church with a comparable doctrinal statement in other parts of the country.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Try putting THAT in brackets.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Minimum wage was almost $6.50 when I was a teen, and was well past that by the time I had my first job.
I'm curious about what minimum wage you are referring to. US Federal minimum wage is currently $5.85/hr and won't excede $6.50/hr until July of 2008.
Several state have a higher minimum wage. In California minimum wage was $6.25/hr in 2001, was raised to $6.75/hr in 2002 where it stayed fixed until January of this year when it was raised to $7.50/hr.
I can't find a single place in the US where the minimum wage was significantly higher than $6.50/hr before this year.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Beverly,
That's the culture I mean.
My feeling is that it is not the responsibility of young women to be paid less than minimum wage in order for the parents to live the gospel. In other words, the sacrifice is being asked from the wrong people. Random teenagers should not be asked to bear the burdens of the sacrifice.
Should movie theatres charge less to married couples because it's important for them to date? But what about dating to get married in the first place? Should wait staff give up their salary so a couple could have a romantic evening? Should car companies be asked to charge less for cars that seat seven so it's affordable? Should a doctor charge less if his patient is a mother? Should a lawyer have different rates for married people than for single people or for widows or widowers?
If that sounds wrong, then why would underpaying the babysitter be okay? Wouldn't that be because babysitting isn't a "real" job? I think part of the reason babysitting isn't a "real" job is because it is work that is traditionally done by females, and often young females. In other words, it isn't the work, but the people doing it, and that's all kinds of wrong.
Should a man with a SAHM wife and five children be paid more than a single female for the same job with the same level of experience? That's quite unfair.
I consider that the answers to all of the above is no.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Sorry, that was a mis-type.
Minimum wage was almost $5.50 an hour is what I meant to say.
And I meant state.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:My feeling is that it is not the responsibility of young women to be paid less than minimum wage
I can completely understand the problems with cultural attitudes being brought to bear to get girls to accept less than they should, but I think that tieing teenage mini-jobs to the minimum wage doesn't make much sense.
Ultimately, babysitting is generally not all that onerous and can even be pretty pleasant and it is a job open to people who really don't have other jobs that they really have open to them. I don't see the huge sacrifice that you seem to.
Again, I think that the postulated culturally based intimidation and exploitation is wrong, but not all cases of paying babysitters less than minimum wage.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:babysitting is generally not all that onerous and can even be pretty pleasant
Sure - not a "real" job. Of course, answering phones or night security can be pretty cushy as well, but we don't expect "good" receptionists or night guards to work for $3 an hour.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
"Ultimately, babysitting is generally not all that onerous and can even be pretty pleasant"
That really depends on the person who's doing the babysitting. Should one person be paid less for the job just because there are other people out there who enjoy doing it?
Once again: <--hates babysitting
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
If movie theatres charged more money then people could afford for a movie, then the theatres would have a choice- drop their rates or get nothing. If they chose to drop their rates, that is their choice. If they didn't, then customers would have to decide if it was worth the higher cost. If the customers all said no, I simply cannot afford that, then the movie theatre would have to go out of business. With babysitting, you are making a contract with each family individually. One contract might be different then another, but babysitter and parent have both agreed.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Also we don't always define "work" based on the pleasantness of the employment. (Whew, I smell Jane Austen.) More important is the time that one has to take away from the things they would rather be doing, or need to get done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, but people in those jobs are not equivilent to the pool for babysitting jobs nor are the job equivilent. When I was a teenage doing odd jobs and such for people, I didn't expect to be paid like I was a night watchman, and the jobs I did were often much more demanding and/or needed more specialized skills than babysitting does. Why does it deserve a special status?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:That really depends on the person who's doing the babysitting.
Yeah, and the kids being babysat. I like babysitting-- but there were a few families I refused to go back to.
And movie theaters are something we can afford about 3 times a year, currently, unless someone gives us tickets as a gift.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Should one person be paid less for the job just because there are other people out there who enjoy doing it?
Should parents pay kids who would probably do a worse job more because they don't like kids?
If you don't like kids, don't babysit if the money isn't rewarding enough.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: pool for babysitting jobs
Please lead me to this magical pool. I have a lot of friends who can't find babysitters. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As I said in the other thread, when I was was a teenager, I would have loved to be "underpaid" for babysitting like the gals in my ward were.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What other thread?
---
quote:I have a lot of friends who can't find babysitters.
Tell them to offer more money/benefits.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I have a lot of friends who can't find babysitters.
Tell them to call my daughter.
I should point out that Natalie has been asked to help out in the church nursery before, particularly when church nursery workers were absent, and it does seem the church asks the young teen girls to do that rather than the boys. In particular, Natalie gets asked because she has such a good reputation as a babysitter. She does not take money for that, even though our nursery workers are paid (regular minimum wage). She considers it a service she can offer the church.
I don't consider it exploiting her or taking advantage of her, no more than I consider it exploitation when my husband replaces the faucet in the church's kitchen for free. If you have talents and abilities the church needs, and want to offer them as service to the church, then fine. I don't take money for teaching choir either.
No one in our church, though would consider having my daughter over to babysit and not paying her or rather paying her something like $3 an hour. That's insane. Babysitters do have an important job, and if you can't afford the going rate for babysitters, you should spend your evenings in at home instead. No one owes anybody a "night out" not matter what your financial circumstances. Either save up for the cost of the entire evening, which includes a decent wage for your babysitter, or don't go out.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Should parents pay kids who would probably do a worse job more because they don't like kids?
Let me rephrase. We were talking about whether or not teenagers deserve minimum wage for babysitting. You claim not necessarily because the job can be pleasant, or is relatively easy. (Or am I misinterpreting you?) But pleasantness has nothing to do with the federal minimum wage, nor does the pool of employees. It was my mistake to compare them to other teens who like the job, since that isn't really what we were talking about in the first place. The only reason babysitters aren't protected by the law that gives other people fair wages (regardless of how cushy their jobs are) is that they get paid under the table. Of course, that benefits both parties, because it also allows underage kids to be hired and make money.
Unless there is some law I'm not aware of that specifically names babysitters as being exempt from labor laws. Maybe there is. But it doesn't change the fact that people get paid at least minimum wage for easy jobs everyday.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: What other thread?
---
quote:I have a lot of friends who can't find babysitters.
Tell them to offer more money/benefits.
When I was little, the local Christian college had a service where parents could call to get a student to come sit for them. I think it was actually a college program, and the sitters had to be trained a bit first. I remember that we always had very nice sitters. I don't remember how much my parents paid them, though.
-pH
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:No one owes anybody a "night out" not matter what your financial circumstances. Either save up for the cost of the entire evening, which includes a decent wage for your babysitter, or don't go out.
I completely agree. Absolutely.
The problem I see is that among several groups of people (including mine), the "going rate" IS $3 an hour, because of the cultural attitudes mentioned above. I think that's absolute crap.
I also think there is a vast difference between "please serve in a church setting" and "please charge me almost nothing for a service you provide because I'm a member of your church."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:What other thread?
This thread is a spinoff of a thread on Sakeriver.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's not a spinoff. It's a re-imagining.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Either save up for the cost of the entire evening, which includes a decent wage for your babysitter, or don't go out.
Or trade babysitting with another couple.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: Either save up for the cost of the entire evening, which includes a decent wage for your babysitter, or don't go out.
While I agree with this, I disagree on your definition of "decent wage for [a] babysitter." And I say that as someone who used to do a lot of babysitting.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Unless there is some law I'm not aware of that specifically names babysitters as being exempt from labor laws. Maybe there is. But it doesn't change the fact that people get paid at least minimum wage for easy jobs everyday.
Actually, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)is the law that establishes "The Minimum Wage". It only covers work done in "interstate commerce". The Department of Labor interperets interstate commerce very broadly. But, no one has ever placed casual babysitting within a family home as engaged in interstate commerce. There may be state laws that apply in some states. But the Federales don't care.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: Unless there is some law I'm not aware of that specifically names babysitters as being exempt from labor laws. Maybe there is. But it doesn't change the fact that people get paid at least minimum wage for easy jobs everyday.
Considering that by labor law your average babysitter cannot work (being under age 16 and not possessing a work permit), it is more accurate to say that the laws do not apply, rather than that they are exempt.
Posted by Lostincyberspace (Member # 11228) on :
according to federal laws there are three jobs that have no minimum age (and wage) babysitting, Lawn Mowing, and news paper delivery. the first two ar quite common still but more and more the third is being phased out in favor of older car driving age people.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Again, it is the FLSA that establishes "the child labor requirements in nonagricultural occupations." The FLSA only applies to employeers engaged in interstate commerce. Casual babysitting within a family home is not covered. Retail sales, including food service, is considered interstate commerce, just for the record.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Whenever I see this thread on the front page, I mentally tack "of Death" onto the end.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Aren't there exceptions for small family businesses with less than a certain number of employees (exceptions, that is, on when children can work there and for how many hours)? I seem to remember something about that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Whenever I see this thread on the front page, I mentally tack "of Death" onto the end.
That's the wages of sin. What kind of babysitting are YOU doing? Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lostincyberspace: according to federal laws there are three jobs that have no minimum age (and wage) babysitting, Lawn Mowing, and news paper delivery. the first two ar quite common still but more and more the third is being phased out in favor of older car driving age people.
Wrong on the Lawn Mowing part. Quote from Subpart c of Part 570 of Title 29 CFR Permitted Occupations for 14 and 15-Year-Old Minors..... "6. Cleanup work, including the use of vacuum cleaners and floor waxers, and MAINTENANCE of GROUNDS, but NOT including the use of power-driven mowers or cutters." But, again, the FLSA only includes employers ingaged in interstate commerce. If you hire the neighbor kid to mow your home lawn, it is not covered by the act.
Posted by Lostincyberspace (Member # 11228) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Aren't there exceptions for small family businesses with less than a certain number of employees (exceptions, that is, on when children can work there and for how many hours)? I seem to remember something about that.
Children can work at any age if a parent owns or co owns the business (no corporations though) but must be paid minimum wage or competitively, same hours as all other minors I beleive.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Some quotes
quote:(b) “Commerce” means trade, commerce, transportation, transmission, or communication among the several States or between any State and any place outside thereof.
That is all that is covered by the Act. Even if the work is covered, the following persons are not covered.
quote:(3) For purposes of subsection (u) of this section, such term does not include any individual employed by an employer engaged in agriculture if such individual is the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the employer's immediate family.
quote:(A) The term “employee” does not include any individual who volunteers to perform services for a public agency which is a State, a political subdivision of a State, or an interstate governmental agency, if— (i) the individual receives no compensation or is paid expenses, reasonable benefits, or a nominal fee to perform the services for which the individual volunteered; and (ii) such services are not the same type of services which the individual is employed to perform for such public agency.
8) any employee employed in connection with the publication of any weekly, semiweekly, or daily newspaper with a circulation of less than four thousand the major part of which circulation is within the county where published or counties contiguous thereto
quote:3) any employee employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment organized camp, or religious or non-profit educational conference center, if— (A) it does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year
quote:15) any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves
24) any employee who is employed with his spouse by a nonprofit educational institution to serve as the parents of children— (A) who are orphans or one of whose natural parents is deceased, or (B) who are enrolled in such institution and reside in residential facilities of the institution, while such children are in residence at such institution, if such employee and his spouse reside in such facilities, receive, without cost, board and lodging from such institution
quote:
2) Any establishment that has as its only regular employees the owner thereof or the parent, spouse, child, or other member of the immediate family of such owner shall not be considered to be an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce or a part of such an enterprise.
I know that is more than you want to know about this subject. Oh, by the way persons engaged in the business of extracting and processing natural maple sugar are also exempt. But, the fact remains that babysitters are not covered by any federal minimum wage law.
[ November 20, 2007, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: Artemisia Tridentata ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
FWIW, I'm not really basing this on what is legal. I don't think people who lowball their babysitters and make it acceptable through social pressure are doing anything illegal, but I do think they are doing something wrong.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Thanks, AT! So I was right-- the kids I knew who worked in the family business (family were the only employees) and were not paid a regular wage were not being treated illegally. I was pretty sure that was my understanding from class discussion of child labor laws in eighth grade.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Javert, I don't disagree. But, posters need to be aware that terms like "minimum wage" have a specific legal meaning and shouldn't be used casually to mean something else.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I don't lowball babysitters, I just don't ever use them. I am not convinced that the teens I am not using are necessarily happier about this. Sure, $20 an hour might be nice, but is $3-5 better than nothing?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
AT, thanks for that info. I knew someone had to know more about it than me.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Babysitters do have an important job, and if you can't afford the going rate for babysitters, you should spend your evenings in at home instead. No one owes anybody a "night out" not matter what your financial circumstances. Either save up for the cost of the entire evening, which includes a decent wage for your babysitter, or don't go out.
Yeah, we pretty much never go out. If we payed the "accepted" babysitter's wages, that would by far be the most expensive part of our date. We just can't afford to spend that much on any kind of regular basis.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
quote:Whenever I see this thread on the front page, I mentally tack "of Death" onto the end.
Well, from what I've read of this thread, the wages of babysitting are definitely not dearth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I don't lowball babysitters, I just don't ever use them. I am not convinced that the teens I am not using are necessarily happier about this. Sure, $20 an hour might be nice, but is $3-5 better than nothing?
Is it better than nothing? Depends, how much of a handful are the kids in question?
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Before we left them in charge, we paid anywhere from $7-10/hour for a teenager.![[Mad]](mad.gif)
]![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I didn't realize how much having someone babysit bothered me until my husband's mother (whom I love) had to call and ask ME if she could babysit. That's pretty bad.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)