While often misunderstood as symbols of wealth or status, nannies are actually essential members of the US childcare workforce, enabling many parents to work and playing a key role in the family’s well-being. The phrase “A nanny is a luxury” persists within my industry and there was a time when I saw it that way, too. Over the years, I began to realize the ways in which this phrase has detrimental effects for nannies and for families, and why we’d benefit from reframing it. I also realized that the meaning of this phrase is often only comprehensible to nannies and industry insiders and goes over-the-head of laypeople, resulting in somewhat of an echo chamber.
Here’s what I have learned about the harm of the phrase, “A nanny is a luxury”:
It doesn’t communicate the very logical rationale for nannies’ pay rates. There is a difference between an appropriately priced professional service, and a luxury. Describing nannies as a luxury can undermine the validity and the value of the professional service they provide. Nannies are skilled childcare professionals who provide focused, personalized care to children within their home, tailored to the family’s schedule and needs. While some mistakenly view their hourly rate as excessive, their compensation and benefits package accurately reflects the specialized nature of their work and years of experience in the field.
It does not communicate the inherent value of childcare, as a luxury has no intrinsic value. Part of the reason we struggle to achieve subsidized childcare in the US is because we do collectively view childcare as a luxury rather than as the critical infrastructure that it truly is. Luxuries are valued for their scarcity and the prestige they confer, their worth dictated by market trends and consumer desires. Luxuries are, by definition, “inessential, desirable items which are expensive or difficult to obtain.” (Oxford Dictionary) Nannies, on the other hand, fulfill an essential role in our economy and our society, enabling many parents to pursue their careers while closely fostering the healthy development of a family’s children.
It inadvertently dehumanizes nannies. A common analogy I hear to explain the phrase “A nanny is a luxury” is to compare a nanny to an expensive car like a BMW or a Porsche. I used to employ this vehicle analogy too, which, upon reflection, seems strange. I would never say to a parent, “Here, take this nanny applicant for a test drive.” or, “Nanny not working out? Could be time to trade them in.” That would be appalling and I would be disturbed if my nanny family described me as a human Porsche. Yet within the nanny industry we frequently analogize ourselves in this way, inviting people to compare us to perf machines.
Attempting to draw parallels between nannies and luxury cars contributes to the perception of nannies as status symbols, and invites people to meld their expectations for a luxury item with their expectations for an employee. This reduces the space for nannies to make mistakes, voice disagreements with an employer, or to even feel tired. It reduces the space for in-home childcare workers to be recognized as people.
In my experience, adopting the mindset that “A nanny is a luxury” during client discovery calls resulted hindered my ability to recognize the humanity of the parent and respect their needs. I have since repositioned my agency as a professional staffing service. Here, nannies are skilled employees, parents are employers, and both parties have specific rights and responsibilities. Working together can be a benefit and a privilege for both parties. This shift has greatly improved my effectiveness in serving nannies and parents, and fostered a more respectful and mutually beneficial working relationship for everyone involved.
The perception of in-home childcare as a luxury exacerbates social inequalities. When starting out with my childcare agency, I regarded nannies as luxury-only, underestimating the extent to which many parents rely on in-home care. While not all families need in-home, one-on-one childcare, many do. When we view in-home childcare through the lens of luxury, we overlook the diversity of families who require this care at times, including families with special needs children, essential workers on non-traditional or overnight shifts, and those facing serious illnesses that prevent them from being their child’s primary caregiver. It also overlooks those in extreme situations, such as families with an infant in the NICU for months while an older child at home needs consistent care. Federal funding does not extend to services which have been labeled as luxuries. This creates a financial barrier for access to in-home childcare for families who may need it most yet are least able to afford it, often through circumstances not within their control. Where the parent of a child with special needs recognizes that a nanny is necessary for their child’s care and safety and seeks federal assistance to subsidize the cost, our federal government often misunderstands this as a luxury request. Frequently, it falls upon the mother to relinquish her career and assume the role of a full-time caregiver for the child, essentially becoming the special needs nanny that the family requires but cannot afford.
The suggestion that essential workers use overnight care centers for their children may seem logical on the surface, but it raises deeper questions about the values we hold as a society. Should nurses, firefighters, and overnight grocery store stockers—individuals critical to our safety and our society’s function—have to settle for less when it comes to their children’s care? The implication that only the wealthy deserve to have their children sleep in their own beds at night undermines the sacrifices and contributions of essential workers. This isn’t just about logistics; it’s about respect and equity in how we support those who support us.
During the pandemic, my agency was flooded with inquiries, many families making the difficult decision to allocate one parent’s salary to hire a nanny or join a “nanny pod.” These families hiring a nanny weren’t in the 1% or anywhere close to it, and this was not a luxury. These families prioritized a necessity and made significant sacrifices to sustain it. In many cases, one parent worked to hang onto their family’s health insurance, and devoted most of their earnings to their nanny’s pay. Meanwhile, the other parent compensated by taking on extra work, sacrificing valuable time with their children. I witnessed parents making ends meet by selling their car, downsizing their home, or inviting grandparents to move in. I count these parents as lucky, as many parents were left with no choice but to resign and assume the role of full-time caregiver. Many people lost their homes and more.
It obscures the reality that a nanny is an employee to whom the parent has a serious responsibility. Sometimes parents fail to understand their responsibility to train and support their nanny because they do wrongly approach a nanny as a luxury. This can result in thinking things such as, “I have to train them? Isn’t a nanny already trained and that’s what I’m paying them for?” Sometimes parents behave as though their nanny is the concierge of a 4-star hotel! Because…this is a luxury service, right? The truth is that taking on an employee is a significant responsibility, with complex considerations and obligations dictated by state and federal laws. A nanny is an employee, and for their employer this is a responsibility and a privilege all at once.
It sends a general message that in-home childcare is for rich people, and that isolates a lot of parents. As nannies, sitters, or agency owners, we know that childcare is essential to a parent’s mental health, and we know that the type of childcare each family needs can vary widely. Despite knowing this, we persist in referring to some forms of childcare as luxurious even though they are the necessary standard in some cases. Subsidizing childcare based on income level and expanding options to include professional in-home care, could help families to access the types of care they need.
It ends up contributing to a notion that other forms of childcare are lesser professions. I often see comments in nannying forums such as, “No, I won’t babysit your kids, I’m a nanny,” or, “Don’t call me a babysitter, I’m the nanny.” As both a nanny and a sitter I understand the sentiment behind these comments, but we don’t need to distinguish ourselves as nannies by reducing another equally important group of childcare providers. The babysitters with my agency enable parents to attend chemotherapy appointments, job interviews, funerals, court hearings, surgeries, and more. They often meet numerous new families in a month, quickly adapting to each family’s needs, rules, and parenting style. It requires skill, communication, critical thinking, and dependability. Their services are vital to parents who are not in the market for full-time care yet need dependable, professional in-home childcare on occasion. Sitters are key to parents’ mental health and well-being.
When people think a nanny should cost less, their comprehension of luxury isn’t the problem and so this phrase falls on deaf ears. The problem typically is:
- They are reacting to a misguided belief that people who work in homes or care for kids are of a lower social status or class. These parents are taken aback when they discover that an experienced nanny can, in fact, earn wages comparable to their own. Misconceptions about the monetary value and dignity of childcare can often be traced back to its historical roots as unpaid labor performed by enslaved people and women. This topic warrants much more attention and depth than what can be covered in this blog.
- Their perception is shaped by friends who employ nannies at low wages and/or pay them weekly through cash “under the table.” This leads to a distorted understanding of a nanny’s role and compensation, reinforced by the shared mindset within their friend group.
Conclusion: Toward a More Inclusive Understanding of Childcare.
Moving away from terminology that suggests exclusivity or luxury is key to recognizing childcare as the critical infrastructure it truly is. I reserve the term “luxury” for those items that truly are optional—not applied to essential care that nurtures our next generation. On my agency’s website, I purposefully avoid words like “elite,” “exclusive,” or “premier,” which I commonly see on agency sites. I focus on emphasizing professionalism, quality standards, living wages, and mutual respect.
In addition to a change in terminology, I urge those of us who can to advocate for subsidized childcare to encompass access to in-home childcare in addition to daycare, early childhood, and after-school programs. Even signing a petition helps. However, it’s essential to recognize that access to care will only become meaningful and sustainable when care workers receive living wages and benefits. I contribute to these efforts as a member of Mothering Forward (formerly Campaign For Childcare) and MomsFirst. During Care Workers Recognition Month this April, we engage in additional advocacy through congressional town halls in Washington, D.C.
My perspective is that nannies are essential working professionals deserving of respect, consideration, and commensurate wages. I hope to contribute to a broader societal shift in recognizing childcare’s importance and valuing those who provide it.
Thank you for writing this, I thought I was the only one who thought this sentence is ridiculous and hurtful.
Thank you. It’s a real layered onion of a phrase. I do understand the positive intent behind it and for a long time I didn’t realize the ways in which it harms the nannying profession, and families.
You get close to the point, but then your language still speaks of privilege. You talk about how people are shocked nannies make “as much as they do”, which is classist language. Your viewpoints only apply to a very specific middle/upper-class perspective.
So in this article, you don’t decry that shock, you use it as an example of why the underpaid nannies aren’t doing enough to combat classism that their being hurt by. You also act as if distinguishing the title of the job diminishes another – exposing your own prejudice. There’s nothing diminishing about being a babysitter! It is simply a fact that they are two seperate jobs, even if the distinctions blur slightly at times. If someone says “I’m the chef not the soux chef so I won’t do vegtable prep”, that doesn’t mean either job is less important, simply that they fulfill different roles.
You mentioned how caregivers can be considered second class in our society, but you leave it there without addressing the innate racism and sexism that leads those beliefs. To the ableism that has led to seeing NECESSARY caregiving as a luxury. To lay that at the feet of nannies advocating for themselves is quite the offensive stretch.
Then you talk about inequality, but only of the parents who can still afford to sacrifice in order to afford both healthcare and a nanny. Just because it’s hard doesn’t mean it’s not still a privilege. If we want to show the clear case for universal preschool, then we need to talk about the families who work their lives away just to watch corporations make millions while their own wages stagnate. No amount of sacrifice and labor on their end makes up that disparity. No amount of work will make them able to afford quality, in home childcare. The vouchers and programs offered are barely enough for their kids to attend anywhere.
Could there be a better way to communicate the point? Maybe. But nannies do try to explain while many potential employers purposely misunderstand. Why are we not encouraging employers to lean in and understand more -instead of putting the responsibility on nannies to explain more? If they are the ones who so desperately need childcare in the form of a nanny, it is their job to educate themselves to be an ethical employer.
When people come from a desire to be ethical, they are curious to learn more.
You wrote this article about a perceived problem, but you offered no solution. You just said nannies harm themselves when they say this phrase, and left it on that. I’d have at least liked to see some ownership and suggestions. The idea that nannies need to make themselves smaller or use nicer words is not a solution, that’s blame shifting.
Thank you very much for reading. You make an excellent point that the conclusion was incomplete or trailed off in terms of solutions. I advocate and lobby for subsidized care & federal funding for daycare and preschool, funding which should also include access to in-home care for those who need it. I added that to my blog’s conclusion. Not everyone has time for advocacy and may have other battles to fight, but I hope that those who have some time will do it. Even signing a petition helps. You’re right too that there are some sections where I needed to add more context or another sentence to better communicate my point.
I hope more nannies will describe themselves as highly skilled professionals who set an appropriate rate for their skillset and the specialized nature of their work, which is different than pricing a service because it’s an unnecessary luxury or it’s only a lifestyle desire. I don’t think we should use nicer words. I think we should use firmer words, and not compare ourselves to cars nobody needs. I have felt so angry that people don’t treat childcare professionals like people, and it never occurred to me that by comparing nannies to expensive cars I was not encouraging others to see nannies as people. I do think that we as nannies and agency owners hurt ourselves by using the term luxury, although of course we aren’t the ones who created the US childcare mess. Parents have said so many absurd things to me in terms of believing a nanny should be some luxury concierge who fulfills whims. I realized that me referring to a nanny as a luxury contributes to the problem.
I began re-evaluating the term “luxury” when I injured my back and had to pay out-of-pocket and go into debt for an excellent physical therapist, because my insurance deemed her a “luxury” that I didn’t need. I tried for months to work with PTs my insurance covered and it wasn’t working. My insurance would only pay for more pain med prescriptions – or surgery. But my PT wasn’t a luxury services provider. Her “high” hourly rate and her methods reflected her extensive training and effective quality of care, not luxury. I’d still be using a walker if not for her, or I may have had back surgery and who knows what the outcome would’ve been. I wondered – why do we in the US often refer to quality of care as a luxury? I am tired of excellent childcare and excellent teachers being accessible only to wealthy people. I am tired of seeing moms leave the workplace because their child needs in-home care and they can’t access it.
In the section on how some parents are shocked to find a nanny can earn wages comparable to their own, yes they’re definitely being classist and demeaning. I thought that was communicated in the sentence but maybe it needs clarification. I initially thought about including some explanation on enslavement as the root of why people assume childcare work is for lower class people or “not a real job.” At the time it seemed like I was trying to put too many topics into one blog post and that should have its own dedicated post, but you’re right – it’s important context. I’ve added that. I believe that the case for universal preschool and the insurmountable cost of unsubsidized daycare is another whole post, which I may do soon.
I appreciate you approving my comment and acknowledging it.
I think the fundamental difference we have about the usage of this phrase is that you see the way the idea of luxury is weaponized and think we should stop using the word. I see the way people in positions of power weaponize the word luxury and believe we need to remind them they are not entitled to determine that the things they want are somehow essentials but the things others need are luxuries. I feel it gives us the opportunity to point out the harmful naivete and perspectives that might keep them from being ethical employers in the first place.
I’d love to see a series of articles focusing on the discriminatory nature of the domestic labor field and how that has shaped our perspectives and should influence our actions.
Most of the arguments against the phrase, just validate it even more. Even the car thing, because you technically do “test drive” nannies and “trade in” for one that better suits your needs, to put it crudely.
Also, the definition of luxury is exactly what we mean. Even if childcare itself wasn’t a luxury, in order to afford a nanny, you basically have to be able to afford an adults entire living expenses. Otherwise, your nanny won’t stay or will not be able to provide the full extent of their skills, because they’re being underpaid. Daycare is a much more reasonable option, as are many, many preschools and PDO programs. Nannies are not responsible for the lack of affordable childcare programs, as we ourselves are employees trying to survive in this economy also
Thank you for reading. We can put it crudely, that’s true, but I propose that we stop referring to ourselves crudely, because we are professionals and humans and vital to the US economy. We aren’t flashy cars no one needs. I agree that for the most part only the affluent can afford another adult’s living expenses as their employee, but that does not mean that a nanny is a luxury. My point is that there is a difference between an appropriately priced professional service, and a luxury. And for those who can’t afford a nanny but do need one, I advocate and lobby for subsidies and federal funding. We have a long way to go, with that. There are many parents who cannot access daycare for a special needs child, a child with multiple food allergies, a seizure disorder, etc., but I didn’t realize that until I founded an agency and started meeting all of these parents. Even without that medical barrier, daycare is prohibitively expensive for many families. I fiercely agree with you that nannies are not responsible to work for less than their professional value, or to live in poverty so that others can benefit from their childcare services. You’re 100% right that society has been expecting that of nannies, teachers, and anyone involved in children’s care for a long time – and for many terrible reasons rooted in racism, enslavement, and misogyny. I’m glad to see childcare workers no longer willing to put up with it. Childcare professionals accepting poverty wages is not the solution. Proper state & federal funding of care is the solution. I don’t want this to keep being a nation where only rich parents can access the care that their child needs.
There are also far too many nannies charge more than their skill set and that is hindering the growth and development of these children and ultimately hurting society at large.
I do agree nannies or any worker deserves a living wage. A living wage is different in every state and region too. Nannies are asking for such high rates with nothing more to show for those rates too. Once the mindset changes with the middle to average nanny on education, knowledge and other professional skill sets, most nannies aren’t bringing the level of “luxury” to the table.
Thanks for reading. Yes, luxury labeling sometimes contributes to inadequately qualified nannies asserting an hourly rate that doesn’t match their skillset. Still, in the US we’d do better to focus on what type of care a family needs to access at different points in life, rather than labeling some forms of childcare as luxury. If you’re nannying on a yacht, ok, yes, that’s probably a pure luxury for your employer. But if we’re talking about who should be able to access a nanny, well, maybe our essential workers like nurses and firefighters, especially on night-shifts, ought to get subsidized nanny coverage as a job benefit. Rather than us saying that those kids can go to an overnight care facility and not sleep at home, like kids from wealthier families do.
A nanny is a luxury. The phrase came about from those hiring nannies thinking the standard is nannies are the cheaper way to go for childcare as opposed to day care. Thus article is misunderstanding the phrase to fit a narrative. Its luxury to afford to pay a professional a salary over 60k without it hurting the person employing. Unfortunately, parents over look the career part and think a professional career nanny can make it on 20k salary. The phrase is to combat the delusion parents have.
Thank you for reading. I have observed that in many cases, parents’ delusion comes more from not understanding that childcare is a valid profession and a career that many people purposefully pursue. That lack of understanding is often – though not always – because they have a wrong belief that childcare work is for people of lower social status. Or it’s something you do while you’re in college before you get a so-called “real job.” This traces back to US childcare’s roots as unpaid labor performed by enslaved people and by women. I know what we intend the phrase to mean from our standpoint as nannies, agency owners, and industry insiders. What I have found is that our intended meaning is not very comprehensible to lay-people/the general public. Part of that is willful ignorance, and part of that is parents don’t get accurate guidance about the forms of childcare. US Childcare has pretty much been left up to, “Moms will figure it out.” Ultimately, for me describing nannies as a luxury leaves too much unsaid and lacks nuance. That’s what has led me to changing my terminology to refer to nannies in more serious terms: as highly skilled professionals, specialized care providers, essential workers, employees to whom the employer has a serious legal responsibility, and so on. I think parents need to understand that this is serious. I’ve had to have frank conversations with prospective clients about the necessity of legal payroll, state medical leave laws, keeping written records of performance reviews, no you can’t frivolously fire a nanny with no unemployment pay consequences from the state, yes a nanny contract is a legally binding document enforceable in court, parents may owe a nanny backpay and penalties for failing to pay over-time, and so on.
Nannies are a luxury. They are a want, not a need. Affordable childcare is a need but nannies do not owe anyone affordability. Nannies are a luxury the same as you may need to stay at a hotel for a wedding for a funeral and you may want to stay at the Ritz but you can only afford Motel 8. You don’t get the perks, benefits, flexibility and luxury that come with having a nanny if you can only afford daycare prices. Between vouchers, family members, pt babysitters, nanny shares, subsided preschools and daycare, there are other and more affordable options to make it work for them.
Thank you for reading, but I don’t make any claim here that nannies owe anyone affordability or lower rates. No childcare provider is obligated to earn insufficient wages, so that others can benefit. What we need in the US is subsidized childcare that allows families to access the type of care they need. Not all families need one-on-one in-home care from a nanny, but some do. Whether that’s due to their child’s needs, or the parents’ work schedule, or some other necessary reason. Some cities have 24/7 childcare centers for people who work overnight shifts. Nurses, firefighters, 911 operators, grocery shelf stockers, etc. But why are we telling those essential workers, “You don’t deserve in-home childcare, that’s for the rich. You save lives, you make sure our grocery shelves have food…but your child should spend the night at a center and not at home, because you aren’t rich.” We are the richest nation in the world and we can afford the subsidies. But we are the only developed nation with no universal childcare infrastructure. Our nation invests $500 per year on average in toddler care, where other developed countries invest $15,000 per year. I wish you were right, but there aren’t good vouchers and solutions. Family and grandparents have to work. Struggling to piece together PT babysitters, who often have no background checks, isn’t the safest for kids. Daycare and preschool cost is high even for households with 2 parents working full-time. I know families who’ve been on daycare waitlists for 2 years. I know families with $20-50k in credit card debt for daycare. Much of the US lives in what’s called a childcare desert (https://childcaredeserts.org/). Childcare is interconnected. One form of childcare isn’t really less vital than another. Families have a lot of different needs. Subsidized childcare won’t totally eliminate the need for nannies. If you’re interested, the Domestic Workers Alliance (https://www.domesticworkers.org/) is working on a federal bill of rights for nannies and even a nanny union. Nannies are important.