This seems like a poor comparison. Your babysitter left a part time job (100/25 = 4 hours of work per day) for a full time one and can now afford a car.

Yeah; good for her. The point is that Starbucks and Amazon have created an ever raising floor for the price of labor.

They're low-skill/training jobs, so no skilled job is able to pay less than that. (Also, the Starbucks thing is part time, and she had babysat for other people too -- babysitting probably made sense at 2x the hourly rate of a part time job, but $25 isn't 2x anymore.)

> Starbucks poached our babysitter. $25/hour is the market rate for babysitters around here

Seems like $25/hour was the market rate.

I get the impression the dollar amount didn't change. Instead, the existence of the market did. (None of the other parents we know have been able to find babysitters either.)

Presumably, it'll even out after the labor shortages subside.

Have you tried offering $2,500 per hour? The market exists. There are babies that need babysitting, and people capable of babysitting.

What does not exist is an intersection of the supply and demand curves of people willing and able to pay what people capable of babysitting want to get paid for babysitting.

Are we talking about nannies or a sitter for a random single night? Are there no teenagers in the neighborhood who want an “easy” 4 hours work? That’s what we did with my son (late 90s). Same as my parents did with me and my sister (early 80s).

If he's in SF.. probably not, actually.