You know what’s wild? Most families hiring private chefs have no idea how much they’ll actually use them until they’ve already committed to full-time employment.
Then six months in, they realize they’re paying someone $95,000 a year but they’re only home for dinner three nights a week. Their chef spends half the time meal prepping stuff that sits in the fridge uneaten because plans changed. The math suddenly feels really off.
Or the opposite happens – they hire someone part-time to save money, then they’re constantly frustrated because their chef isn’t available when they actually need them. They end up ordering takeout on the chef’s days off, which defeats the whole point of having a chef in the first place.
After twenty years working with families throughout San Francisco and beyond, I can tell you the full-time versus part-time decision comes down to actual usage patterns, not what you think you want or what sounds more impressive. Let me walk through how to figure out what actually makes sense for your situation.
Track your real patterns first
Before you hire anyone, spend two weeks tracking when you actually eat at home. Not when you wish you ate at home or when you plan to start eating at home more often. When you actually, currently eat at home.
Write down every dinner. Are you home? Are you eating out? Are you traveling? Are you working late and just grabbing something quick? Be brutally honest about your real patterns, not your aspirational ones.
Most San Francisco families are shocked when they actually do this exercise. They think they eat at home most nights. Then they track it and realize between work dinners, travel, late meetings, social obligations, and just general busy life, they’re home for dinner maybe four nights a week if they’re lucky.
If you’re consistently home five or more nights a week, full-time chef staffing might make sense. If you’re home three or fewer nights, part-time is probably plenty. If you’re somewhere in between, keep reading because there are hybrid options.
The actual cost difference
Full-time private chefs in San Francisco typically earn $80,000 to $120,000+ annually depending on experience and responsibilities. Add payroll taxes, benefits, and workers’ comp, and you’re looking at $95,000 to $140,000+ in total employment costs.
Part-time chefs working three days a week might cost $50,000 to $70,000 annually all-in. That’s a substantial savings – $40,000 to $70,000 per year depending on the specific arrangements.
Now factor in actual usage. If you’re paying for full-time but only using chef services three days a week anyway, you’re essentially paying $95,000 for what could cost you $55,000. That extra $40,000 isn’t buying you anything useful because you’re not home the other days.
But if you’re home six nights a week and you’re constantly cooking or ordering takeout because your part-time chef isn’t available, you’re not actually saving money. You’re just shifting costs to restaurants and takeout while being perpetually frustrated.
The right answer depends entirely on your actual usage patterns and whether the flexibility of full-time access is worth the premium you’re paying for it.
What full-time actually gets you
Full-time private chefs do more than just cook dinner the nights you’re home. They handle meal planning for the whole family, grocery shopping, kitchen management, prep work, some breakfast and lunch coverage, entertaining support, and general culinary household management.
For families who entertain frequently at home, full-time makes way more sense. Your chef can prep for events, execute dinner parties, handle holiday meals, and generally support your hosting without you having to schedule around their part-time availability.
For families with complex dietary needs – maybe everyone eats differently, or there are medical diets, or you’ve got specific nutrition goals – full-time chefs can really customize everything and give it proper attention.
For families who value having someone always available to handle food stuff without you thinking about it, full-time provides that peace of mind even if you don’t use it every single day.
One family in Russian Hill barely eats dinner at home during the week but they entertain constantly on weekends. Their full-time chef handles all the entertaining plus some weeknight meal prep. The chef’s not cooking dinner for them Monday through Thursday, but having someone managing their kitchen and being available for weekend events is worth it to them. They could afford it comfortably and the value matched the cost.
When part-time works perfectly
Part-time chefs – whether that’s two days a week, three days a week, or every weekday but not weekends – work great for families whose needs are more limited.
Maybe you just want fresh, healthy dinners ready to heat up. A chef coming in twice a week can batch cook meals that last you through the week. You’re getting home-cooked food without paying for someone full-time.
Maybe you’re home for dinner some nights but not others, and you can plan your chef days around when you’ll actually be there. That works if your schedule is predictable enough to coordinate.
Maybe you don’t need breakfast or lunch coverage, you don’t entertain much at home, and you just want dinner handled without hiring someone full-time. Part-time solves that cleanly.
Part-time also works well for families testing whether having a private chef is worth it at all. Start with two or three days a week. If you love it and want more, you can always expand to full-time later. Much easier than committing to full-time immediately and then trying to scale back.
The hybrid approaches
You don’t have to pick exactly full-time or exactly part-time. Some families create custom arrangements that match their specific needs.
Maybe your chef works full-time during the school year when your family is home consistently, but drops to part-time during summer when you’re traveling more. That matches your actual usage to what you’re paying for.
Maybe you hire a chef for weekdays only – they work Monday through Friday handling dinners and some prep, but you’re on your own for weekends. Or the reverse – weekends only if that’s when you’re actually home and eating as a family.
Some families share chefs with other families. You get your chef two days a week, another family gets them three days. You split the cost and everyone gets quality chef services without paying for full-time staffing you wouldn’t fully use.
San Francisco’s chef market is flexible enough that you can usually find someone willing to work part-time or create custom arrangements if you’re clear about what you need and you pay fairly for it.
The entertaining factor changes everything
If you entertain at home regularly – and I mean actually regularly, not just occasionally – that shifts the calculation heavily toward full-time.
Coordinating event support with a part-time chef is annoying. You need them on specific dates that might not align with their normal schedule. You’re constantly negotiating availability. They might not be free when you need them for important events.
Full-time chefs can handle your entertaining as part of their regular role. You don’t stress about whether they’re available. They know your preferences, your kitchen, your entertaining style. They can prep in advance and execute seamlessly.
One family in Noe Valley entertains dinner guests probably twice a month. Not huge events, just regular hosting. They tried using a part-time chef initially but coordinating around entertaining schedules became a nightmare. They switched to full-time and immediately the stress disappeared. Worth the extra cost for them given how much they value hosting.
When you’re unsure, start smaller
If you genuinely can’t decide between full-time and part-time, start with part-time. It’s way easier to expand from part-time to full-time than to try to scale back from full-time to part-time.
Hire someone for three days a week. See how it actually works with your real life patterns. If you’re constantly wishing they were available more, expand to full-time. If three days feels like plenty, you’ve saved yourself a bunch of money.
Don’t commit to full-time based on how you imagine your life working. Commit based on how your life actually works. Most people have more aspirational ideas about eating at home than match reality.
The San Francisco market specifically
San Francisco has excellent chef talent available for both full-time and part-time roles. You’re not compromising on quality by hiring part-time – you’re just matching employment to actual needs.
Cost of living here is absurd, so chef compensation runs high regardless of whether positions are full-time or part-time. Part-time doesn’t mean “cheap” – it means proportional to the time worked.
The competitive chef market also means you can usually find someone skilled who wants part-time work. Maybe they’re working for multiple families. Maybe they’re doing private chef work plus some catering. Maybe they prefer part-time for personal reasons. Point is, part-time roles aren’t just for less experienced chefs.
What matters more than full-time versus part-time
Here’s something families miss: the full-time versus part-time question matters way less than finding a chef who actually fits your family’s cooking style and needs.
A full-time chef who doesn’t cook food your family likes is worthless regardless of their availability. A part-time chef who nails exactly what you want to eat is valuable even if they’re only there twice a week.
Focus on finding the right person first. Then structure the employment to match your actual usage. Don’t let the full-time versus part-time question override the more important question of whether this person can actually cook food you’ll love eating.
Be honest with yourself
The families who make bad decisions about chef staffing are usually the ones who aren’t honest about their real patterns.
They tell themselves they’ll start eating at home more once they have a chef. They convince themselves they need full-time access “just in case.” They worry part-time seems cheap or uncommitted.
Then they end up paying for full-time staffing they barely use, feeling guilty about it, and eventually letting the chef go because the value doesn’t match the cost.
Be realistic about how you actually live. If you travel constantly, work late regularly, eat out often, and have unpredictable schedules, full-time chef staffing might not make sense no matter how much you earn. Part-time could give you 80% of the value at 60% of the cost.
But if you’re genuinely home most nights, you entertain regularly, you value having food completely handled without thinking about it, and you can comfortably afford it, full-time might be perfect.
Neither option is better or worse. They’re just different solutions for different usage patterns. Match your choice to your reality and you’ll be happy with it. Mismatch them and you’ll end up frustrated regardless of which direction you went.
