How much to pay Babysitter for three kids

user wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:30:58 +0000, Penny Gaines wrote:

If the parent supplies everything the teen might desire, then they
won't want to work at all.

I don't buy that argument. There are *plenty* of teens who want
responsibility, and to start severing the ties to Mom and Dad. So they
go off and do things that show their growing independence, like taking
a job, even when they don't really "need" the money.

Sure, some teens are lazy. Others are spoiled. But it's completely
unfair to paint them all that way.

??? I don't think that not working means a teen is lazy
or spoiled. I never worked while in high school. My parents'
philosophy was that my "job" was to do extremely well in school
and extracurriculars. Frankly, for me, the time that went into
feathering my resume in that way paid a lot more for college
than any reasonable amount of working would have. I didn't live
in the lap of luxury, but I had what I needed and my academics
and extracurriculars didn't leave time for work (or hanging around
spending money either). In the end, it was a strategy that worked
very well for me, and I don't consider myself to have been lazy
or spoiled (though I do consider myself fortunate).

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article t, Clisby says...



bizby40 wrote:

"enigma" wrote in message
. ..

"bizby40" wrote in
news:qs2dnU71lc57SRrYnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@adelphia. com:


"Cathy Kearns" wrote in message
gy.net...

As for TV, most of the kids, just
like most adults, don't just sit in front of the TV and
watch whatevers on,
they go through their Tivo'd shows. While babysitting the
home probably
doesn't have their Tivo'd shows, so they aren't able to
sit back and blow
through their backlog of shows. (Though I do know one
family that does Tivo
their favorite babysitter's shows as a perk...)

OMG -- 76 channels, and they can't find anything to watch
unless their favorite shows have been TIVO'd?!! Wah, wah,
wah.

i have satellite, it has more than 76 channels, but i never
watch because there's nothing worth wasting my time with.
nothing even worth background noise for knitting or beading
even.


Why do you have it then?


besides, you're blowing right by the point about not being
able to do homework while sitting & focussing on the 'fun
perk'.


I responded to the part about the TV because it flabbergasted me.
It's shocking to me that adults, or at least *an* adult, has bought
into the entitlement of teens to the point that she would feel it's
understandable that a teen might not want to get paid to sit there and
watch one of the 76 shows available -- no, it has to be one of their
*favorite* shows! Forget that they all have cell phones and will
probably sit there text messaging all night anyway.


Entitlement? Well, yes - teens, like everyone else, are entitled to
take jobs that offer what they want, and decline jobs that don't offer
what they want. You're entitled to hire them, or decline to hire them.
You're not entitled to their labor at whatever you happen to want to pay.



This kinda reminds me of the person some while back who wondered why he couldn't
get his front walk snowplowed for ten dollars.
Message-ID:
is the O.P.

Banty

wrote in message
s.com...
If that's ridiculous, why does my job offer free sodas, flexible
hours,
and a number of other desirable perks?

Most companies offer perks. However in most cases you aren't allowed
to pick and choose what those perks are. For example, a lot of
companies won't budge on vacation time no matter how badly they want
you

It's because I get to choose
what job to take, and if I'm offered more than one, I'm likely to
choose the one that offers the most goodies. Why wouldn't I? As
long
as there are enough employers in a given market that there's a bit
of
competition for desireable employees, the employers who offer the
best
deals are going to find it easier to get good people to come to work
for them. If they figure out that all the best potential hires are
turning them down because they don't offer the flexibility to go to
drama club, they'd start offering that.

That may be true, but we haven't been talking about what it takes to
get "top baby-sitting talent." People have been talking about the
going rate for anyone. And as I said in an earlier post, not all
teens are "Babysitter Club" quality.

So it's more analogous to saying that all companies should offer all
these benefits to all their employees because no one should be
expected to have to work without them.

It sounds as though you think employers have an obligation to offer
only the basics because otherwise it's somehow unfair (and possibly
kind of anti-work-ethic as well). I don't get it.

The situation I see described in this thread is almost like a prima
donna. "She won't work unless she has lilac blossoms in her suite,
and a supply of fresh fruit at all times, and the masseuse should be
there at promptly 11am." I think that very few of these teens will
find employers scrambling to meet their every desire. For those that
do, well, more power to them.

Bizby

Ruth Baltopoulos wrote:

I think that most parents are offering what seems to be the norm in
their area, without thinking a whole lot deeper than that, and I really
don't see this as such a huge problem. I do think it is hard for some
of us, who worked really hard and didn't feel like everything was handed
to us, to grapple with how easy it *appears* some kids have it...

I think some people have outdated notions of what's
"easy" for kids. While there are obviously some spoiled and
lazy teens out there, in general teens are not facing the
same environment most of us did years ago. College is increasingly
expensive (even accounting for inflation). School work loads
are greater in many cases, and there is more competition for
many. While I may not know a representative national sample
of teens, the ones I know are fairly representative of *this*
area, and they're working their little backsides off, for the
most part. Now, this area is relatively affluent, so some
of these kids' parents can afford to send them to college
but they're working hard to be competitive so that they can
get into the colleges they want to get into. Others are
working hard to be competitive for scholarships. Some do
need to save a substantial amount of money and are working
significant hours at better paying jobs to achieve that.
So, I don't think these kids are being handed anything on
a silver platter. They're working hard to get where they
want to get in life. It's just that spending their time
babysitting for $5-6/hour isn't part of that plan. The
opportunity cost is too high for them to take those jobs.

Best wishes,
Ericka

In article , Cathy Kearns
says...


"bizby40" wrote in message
...
Do you guys not see that you are part of the problem? With your never
ending excuses for everything the teens "need"?

Actually that is exactly the point. The teens don't "need" to babysit. The
teens don't want to babysit. They have other ways to make money/spend their
time. As a parent of a teen I don't buy into the sense of entitlement that
parents of younger kids might have thinking they get should get cheap
babysitting.

In many areas the babysitter market is a sellers market. If you see that as
unfair, if the teens are making more than you make for much more flexible
hours and better working conditions go right ahead and jump in. I'm sure
someone would prefer an adult babysitter, and pay you even more.





I don't think anyone is arguing that that's what teenagers "need". Just that
that's the going rate for pay and perks. (Although in my area, at least when my
son was younger, I didn't give nearly all those perks..)

People aren't paid according to what they "need". Let alone what an employer
assess as their "needs"! Good gosh.

There's a lot of common but wrong ideas about how things are priced, including
labor. General contractors should not make enough to sent their kids to
college. Houses are worth their buying price + cost of improvements + whatever.
Used goods are priced according to their last price bought used, minus some for
further use.

Wrong wrong wrong. All of these are set by the market.

Banty (and I don't mind a bit if my GC's musically talented daughters go to
college!)

"toypup" wrote in message
. net...
Who wouldn't want to work for a company that pays well and has
excellent benefits and a wonderful boss? That company could afford
to choose from the cream of the crop.

Except that a company is driven by the bottom line. They do studies
to find out whether the extra expense actually translates into value
for them. They will even cut back on perks if it makes sense to do
so. For example, where I worked, they have cut way back on travel
expenses. No first class, business class only for flights 5 hours,
no company travel agent, and so on. They've actually cut back on a
lot of other perks too.

Bizby

wrote in message
ps.com...

toypup wrote:
"bizby40" wrote in message
...
Sheesh! I'd like to see how these kids transition to life after
school.
"Okay, I'll take this job, but I can't come in until 10 on MWF because
I
have a spin class I take, and on Thursdays I leave early because I'm in
a
drama club, and oh, BTW my drama partner and I do lunch on Tuesdays to
get
ready for rehearsal, and so I'll be a couple hours so we can go over
our
lines. And BTW, I noticed that your break room only has coffee -- I'll
be
needing you to add diet sodas and a selection of healthy snacks for
most
days and some candy for when I get the urge...."

Actually, this is exactly how I operate. I work per diem and have that
flexibility. When my boss calls, I tell him if and when I can work. He
asked me to come in next week Friday. I said I can't come until after
DS's
performance. He wanted me to come in last Friday, I told him no, DH had
the
day off and we need to spend it together. Of course, I do try arrange my
schedule for him a little and I make myself available every Monday, but I
pretty much work whenever I want to work. I refuse to travel. I will
not
work weekends or graveyards or holidays or overtime. I will not accept
more
than three days a week of work, because I want to be home with the kids.
He
knew all this when he hired me. What's in it for him? He has someone he
can call at the last minute and I do try to fit him in when possible.


And I'm guessing that, by working per diem and part time, you also make
sacrifices, like lower wages and fewer tangible benefits. (Paid
vacation, insurance, etc.)

Actually, I earn $1 more per hour than a regularly scheduled worker. I
don't get paid vacations, but I get to schedule them at my convenience. I
don't get insurance. I do get some benefits, like the dependent care
program and the 403b (retirement). No one has to pay to park here and
everyone has to buy their own lunches. I do lose out on continuing
education days that the company pays for its regular workers.

If I wanted to work for a temp agency, I'd get $4 per hour more. That job
was offered with flexible days, but I turned it down, because I like my job
and my boss.

But I suspect that most entry level jobs (the sort that young people
will go into right out of high school and college) are NOT going to be
extremely flexible, or if they are, they will pay scut wages to make up
for it. (I trust that the amusement park didn't pay you $20/hr.)

I didn't get $20 per hour but I did make $3 more than minimum wage.

My point in bringing up flexible time in the adult world was to answer
bizby's question: "Sheesh! I'd like to see how these kids transition to
life after school. . . ." Maybe they'll live like me. )

If the question is if I could raise my family on this per diem lifestyle
with no benefits, I wouldn't want to. I want health and dental insurance.
I don't want to pay for that out-of-pocket. However, if someone is willing
to pay for the insurance themselves and do without a few other perks, s/he
could earn a decent living working full-time dictating his/her own hours in
my job.

In article , bizby40 says...


"toypup" wrote in message
.net...
Who wouldn't want to work for a company that pays well and has
excellent benefits and a wonderful boss? That company could afford
to choose from the cream of the crop.

Except that a company is driven by the bottom line. They do studies
to find out whether the extra expense actually translates into value
for them. They will even cut back on perks if it makes sense to do
so. For example, where I worked, they have cut way back on travel
expenses. No first class, business class only for flights 5 hours,
no company travel agent, and so on. They've actually cut back on a
lot of other perks too.

Sure. But if they can keep their employees nonetheless. They only cut back as
far as they assess they can do that, without losing people. Maybe they can't.
And that's different in DesMoines IA than it is in Sunnyvale CA.

Your complaint is about not finding labor - no?

Banty

"bizby40" wrote in message
...

"toypup" wrote in message
. net...
Who wouldn't want to work for a company that pays well and has excellent
benefits and a wonderful boss? That company could afford to choose from
the cream of the crop.

Except that a company is driven by the bottom line. They do studies to
find out whether the extra expense actually translates into value for
them.

But a company that offers great benefits and good management and high pay
will get a better talent pool to choose from.

Ericka Kammerer wrote:

I think some people have outdated notions of what's
"easy" for kids. While there are obviously some spoiled and
lazy teens out there, in general teens are not facing the
same environment most of us did years ago.

Yeah, that's the motivating force behind the "I had to walk
to school five miles, uphill both ways, no shoes, no feet,
no..." mentality.

College is increasingly
expensive (even accounting for inflation). School work loads
are greater in many cases, and there is more competition for
many. While I may not know a representative national sample
of teens, the ones I know are fairly representative of *this*
area, and they're working their little backsides off, for the
most part. Now, this area is relatively affluent, so some
of these kids' parents can afford to send them to college
but they're working hard to be competitive so that they can
get into the colleges they want to get into. Others are
working hard to be competitive for scholarships. Some do
need to save a substantial amount of money and are working
significant hours at better paying jobs to achieve that.
So, I don't think these kids are being handed anything on
a silver platter. They're working hard to get where they
want to get in life. It's just that spending their time
babysitting for $5-6/hour isn't part of that plan. The
opportunity cost is too high for them to take those jobs.

Speaking from my own experience with two daughters raised in
this town, there is a large enough element of what they
consider to be 'spoiled' that they often enough comment on
it themselves. Over the years, they have informed me that
they are in the vast minority of kids that are expected to
help around the house or earn money to fund social
activities or other interests. Many kids they know have no
household responsibilities and/or aren't expected to work.
A large number have a car handed to them at 16 and college
paid for as a given. This is a fairly affluent little
place, as well, and I do see teens that are working their
butts off to get into certain colleges, but I certainly
wouldn't say it is the majority. I know a fair number of
older teens in this town, as my home was one of the 'hang
outs' and have observed their schedules firsthand.

Most of my friends worked on some level from at least
mid-teens on, as did I, and as did my children. I would say
that a good portion of my requirements for my children as
regards working (chores around the house not being optional)
were financially driven, but I would like to think that I
would have felt the same way even if we were wealthier. My
kids are aware of the value things take on when you work for
them, and as you say in your own experience, perhaps that
means working very hard in school and at extracurriculars
toward a superior college education. There are all
different ways to work.

My girls wanted to be involved with horses, which was not in
our financial reality, so they needed to work to help make
it happen, as well as continue to do well in school, and
help out at home. It really wasn't all that hard of a
juggling act, although they got in their share of griping g
--
Ruth