

Hiring a Nanny - raganwald
http://raganwald.posterous.com/hiring-a-nanny

======
tptacek
As a buyer of child care, I had a hard time reasoning about the point
'raganwald is making because he is (inadvertantly, I'm sure) parroting an
argument that plagues child care provider discussions on craigslist and drives
me nuts.

The argument boils down to, "I believe that children are our future, and you
drive a BMW so pay me $30/hr."

Yes, child care is a key priority. It's not something one wants to cut corners
on. But pricing is based on supply and demand. Complex currents and eddies of
value, sourcing, disruptive innovation, and changing requirements define both
those terms.

A lowball offer might represent the unrealistic expectation that "my problems"
(competing priorities) are "your problems". You can then rightly point out
that my problems have nothing to do with how your time should be valued.

But a lowball offer might also represent price discovery. The spot price of
child care is _at least_ different from season to season --- which is the
typical market cycle for child care --- and _probably_ different from week to
week. Discovery is a reasonable way to price child care.

To the craigslist gadflies, I can thus point out that there's an ample supply
of dedicated, quality providers --- if you're discriminating and know where to
look.[1]

To 'raganwald, I can only say that just as my competing priorities in
budgeting headcount aren't your problem, neither is your problem of wanting
the market for your services to work like that of a master craftsman my
problem. If you're getting outbid and outperformed by cheap interns, the
market may have shifted out from under you without you knowing about it.

Just food for thought. However much his clients are paying him, 'raganwald
probably doesn't get paid enough.

[1] I think we pay over the market median price, but we love our provider, and
will pay a premium for consistency; that premium is attached to a business
relationship that took time to form.

~~~
raganwald
If you are reasoning about this post based on market forces and equilibrium
and what-not, I have failed to communicate what was on my mind.

I wasn't thinking, "Pay me $450,000 a year because I'm Raganwald" any more
than I was thinking "Pay me $30 an hour because you drive a BMW." What I was
really thinking was, "If you give me the impression you are trying to
underpay, by whatever irrational measure I have of under- and over-payment, I
am going to wonder whether you value my services. And I want to work in a
place that values my services."

The cash itself is almost irrelevant, and I think that's why perquisites like
chefs and masseuses work even though a "rational" employee would rather have
the cash. The company going to the trouble of providing a lot of perquisites
is sending a signal that they consider the employee's work important, and that
matters to some employees.

I'll let you know if interns are outbidding me. So far, they aren't for the
simple reason that I employ two slaves to do most of my work for me. One I
call "CPU" and the other I call "The Compiler." The more of my work I get them
to do, the better my value proposition compared to interns ;-)

~~~
tptacek
I guess the real point I want to make is that child care may be a bad example,
because there are a lot of providers complaining very loudly that they are
getting underpaid (relative to the standard of living enjoyed by their
clients), and it turns out to be very easy to ignore them and source quality
child care anyways.

I liked your post, as usual. I'm just saying there was cognitive dissonance
between the analogy you chose and the point you were making.

~~~
raganwald
Great stuff. I already gave you an upmod, so sadly I can't give you another
:-(

------
jon_dahl
This is mostly true, but I think it leaves one thing out: risk. You _can_ get
a programmer for $40K that will be as good as a $80K programmer if you're
willing to take a risk - e.g. folks early in their career who haven't proven
themselves yet. You just can't guarantee it ahead of time. It's risky. And if
you find someone awesome, they won't stay at $40K for long.

~~~
lsc
you can also make tradeoffs... e.g. the programmer who, say, has poor
interpersonal skills, all other things being equal, will not be able to
command the same wage as someone else who is just as good of a programmer with
better interpersonal skills. If you can find a programmer who has a problem
holding down their market value that you can deal with more easily than most
employers, you can come away with a deal that is good for you and for the
programmer in question.

------
AmberShah
I agree with this line of thinking completely for any hiring where the quality
of the job is important. Programming? Yes. Nanny for my children? Yes. Washing
my car? Shrug.

And yes, for the short period I had a nanny for my son, she was paid very well
(well above "market"). And now that my dad is watching my son full time, I pay
him even more. I don't understand the people who balk at paying $100 a week
for childcare. Yes, it's expensive (although a lot cheaper than a nanny, by
the way), but it's your child! Geez...

~~~
jemfinch
How in the world can someone get away with paying $100/week for childcare? I
couldn't find that price (as a buyer) even in smalltown Kansas early this
year.

~~~
prawn
Got a couple of friends with kids here in South Australia and they pay $70 a
day (USD and AUD currently almost on par) for pretty standard child care. I
think they'd be quite excited were $100/wk an option!

~~~
JoeAltmaier
But its in those valuable Australian dollars!

------
run4yourlives
This is probably not a politically correct thing to say these days but it
bothers me that we see no problem in outsourcing the upbringing of our
children to the lowest bidder.

If we spent half as much effort on our kids directly as we do on our personal
passions (be they work, our hobbies etc) the world would be a better place.

Rest assured I'm not singling out or criticizing any particular person or
their personal family choices, just observing trends that seem on the surface
to have a net negative impact, long term.

~~~
petercooper
I agree with you, but you can get grief both ways.

If you decide to go with having just one working parent (as my wife and I have
- I'm the sole "breadwinner"), the working parent's motivations and intentions
still seem to be questioned.

It's bizarre that anyone should have the gall to comment on how many hours I
spend with my child (or not) when I'm supporting the entire family and
allowing her the benefit of a full-time mom, yet it happens.

