Quote:
Originally Posted by RunDownHouse.
Keep thread monthly.
I've got an infant, and both my wife and I work non 9-5 jobs, which means we need a daycare with 24/7 availability. I was thinking: paying someone something like $20k/yr plus room and board would be a slight overpay v. daycare, but the reliability and convenience would probably be worth it. The wife would never go for it, though, and I'm not sure how happy I'd be with another adult living in the house. I can hardly stay with my own parents for more than 48-72 hours.
No idea how realistic that compensation is for an au pair, either, but there's got to be tons of people looking for a US visa, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Didace
Maximum? What kind of communist hell do you live in?
$20K is a for an employee, not an au pair. An au pair is a girl who stays in your house and gets free food and pocket money (e.g. up to 340 eur in Yakmelk's country) while they learn the foreign language in return for light work and occasional childcare duties. It's kind of the same in any country - an employer can't just have "volunteers" who get paid - for example - $75K pocket money instead of actual employees for whom you have to pay social security, get visas if applicable and so on - there is always going to be level above which the authorities call BS.
It's true that they often are expected to do a lot more work though. My friend's mother ran an au pair agency in London (that's how I eventually ended up leaving the UK) and the way it usually happened was they would be an au pair with a family on the first year (of 2 max) of their visa, and use the reference to get a "better" au pair position for the second year (better meaning receiving 1000 under the table per month).
Really often it went the same way. The parents were both working 10 hours plus 1 hour commute each way, the child would bond to the au pair, not the mother. The fathers would frequently fall in love with the aux pairs - basically the beautiful woman who lives in your house and looks after it and your kids and whom you support financially is supposed to be called your wife - though being upper middle-class Englishmen they didn't generally do much about it, but it (and the affection of the children) was a source of tension between the wives and the au pairs (they often said "he's really nice to me but she is horrible").
Basically, if you think it is a good idea for your child to go through a series of foster mothers in all but name then get an au pair but otherwise find a wife who is willing to bring up the children or design your working life in such a way that enables you to do it - e.g. my brother is a contract programmer working from home.
But like most things it comes down to values. If you need consumer items very much then you need two incomes. I am far from what others would consider as rich but my wife (actually a former au pair in Paris) doesn't have to work - simply because we prioritise time with the kids that over new phones and foreign holidays and driving a car back and forward to work. When she worked the kids were in school from 8 am to 5 pm every single day even though lessons finish about 1pm.
Also, I don't know much about the US visa situation but in the UK the system was designed in such a way that they could only stay if they got married - and not transfer to any other visa category - so it wasn't really a way to immigrate, but to acquire language skills that would be useful back home (in Slovakia all the CEO's assistants and English teachers aged between about 30-45 are former au pairs and were in heavy demand at the time they were returning). So anyway, the visa isn't really part of the sell.