babysitting ad ..is it unreasonable?

It is so unrealistic that it could be a gag, but not so outrageous as to actually be funny.

(BTW if you are getting paid $15/hr. you are not paying 1/3 of your pay in taxes.)

The Trump thing and Pitbull thing seem tailor made to have people flood it with snarky comments, the only thing they’re missing is mandating that they only leave a 10% tip at all dining establishments.

This is what I’m thinking.

The new development we built in has a facebook page and we had a good laugh when one resident posted a similar (but not as drastic) type ad. She has 3 kids all under school age and wanted someone to watch them full time for $15/hr.
Apparently she wanted to get her moneys worth because the candidate would also do household cleaning and chores while they were watching the kids.
She even had the requirement “willing to accept criticism” in the post.
I wanted to reply “good luck with that” but figured she’d get the hint when no one would respond.

Idk, people are bonkers. This morning, I screen shotted a post from someone advertising availability to pet- or babysit locally. It included “I have never been around toddlers, and I don’t know the jist [sic] of changing diapers.”

But even she is a bargain at $5/hour/child.

A charitable interpretation would be that the advertiser is looking for the sort of person who would pay for snacks out of pocket without thinking twice about it. IOW, they may be trying (but failing) to say they want someone with a kind heart, not that they want someone to pay for all of the kids snacks.

I love the contradiction between getting a babysitter that hasn’t had any runins with the law yet - but must be willing to ignore laws in order to be paid for the position.

She wants to be the cause of their first felony. Maybe they can have something to paste in the baby book.

What’s the charitable interpretation for paying under the table?

Sadly, I’m not qualified for this job, either. :frowning:

The ad (not) in the OP is obviously fake, but the idea that $15 per hour to watch over some children and do a few domestic tasks is laughably unreasonable seems strange. It’s more than I get paid, and that’s constant effort from the moment I get in to when I leave. I know, you’re about to tell me that watching kids is also “constant effort” :dubious:

So? I’m sure there are plenty of parents who have older children who’d be happy to hire her.

Wow, if I didn’t know what the ad was for, from just reading the list of criteria I would have thought it would be a post hiring a hospital administrator.

The babysitter who meets that criteria ought to be paid $50 an hour; half of that being just for putting up with such a mother.

There are plenty of jobs I can do a little bit of. (For example, I can install PVC water lines all day long. But I’m not a plumber. Drains? Water heaters? Nope.) And I would certainly be glad to accept half the pay of a real plumber to do the bits I can do competently. I phrased it badly, but the observation was supposed to be that someone who recognizes and identifies the part of the job she can’t do (yet) prices her services accordingly.

Expecting to pay someone $10/hour, with all of the expectations listed - including tax shenanigans - is bonkers. I would be glad to pay $10/hour for an occasional Friday night sitter who can’t change diapers! (For someone with a degree, I’d expect to pay more. And buy the snacks.)

Sounds like a Hillary fan making fun of the right and of course, the left jumps on it.

A Hillary fan? What the hell does this topic have to do with the monsters hiding under your bed?

The babysitting ad specifies that they are looking for someone who is a Trump fan.

If the post is intentionally satirical or spoofing (as many think) and is therefore making fun of Trump fans, then it’s not much of a leap to think that the post is actually from a Hillary fan, or at the very least, someone who is anti-Trump.

If it is satire, then being “a Hillary fan” is only one of the many possibilities when it comes to authorship.

While a lot of people have pointed out the “Must be a Trump fan” requirement as silly and a possible sign of trolling, a direct accusation to a certain group of people (“Hillary fans”) seems different, and also seems to be inviting this to change from a discussion of the list to a discussion of which political groups are more likely to be conniving trolling liars.

That list, also, is trolling. From somebody. Maybe fans of beets. Freakin’ beet lovers.

So you think it could be a Bernie Sanders supporter?

Or a Republican disgusted with what has happened to his party, or maybe it is a shallow, self-righteous Trump supporter.

edited to add: Or maybe a beet lover.