If money were no object, would you have two nannies for two kids under two?

[Anonymous]

By "new baby" are you referring to the almost 1 old? Because 1 and 2.5 are not so far apart as to have wildly different needs. They'll both be on one nap soon if they aren't already. Actual preschool doesn't start until sometime after 3 so no concern about that yet. They can both attend music, gym, etc. classes together. I'd certainly have someone else help out during the newborn phase but would have the regular nanny watch both once the baby is 6 months or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes and no. If I had all the money in the world I would stay home with a nanny for the above reasons! And maybe get a part time nanny to give our nanny more time with our oldest. But a nanny each doesn’t sound healthy for the kids.

+1 if money were truly no object I'd work part time or on a volunteer basis, so I'd be home a lot more to be with my kids. I suspect my husband would too. So I'd have one nanny but with the idea of me and husband having one of the kids for a lot of the time.

It sounds like the people in the OP are just regular rich, not "dont have to work" level rich. In that case I do see the benefits of two nannies, at least while the youngest is an infant. Once the kids are old enough to play together I think one nanny is better, because the kids should be hanging out.

[Anonymous]

Nope. In addition to the management/payroll/taxes issue, I don't see the need. Your kids aren't developing a relationship with their sibling. And it's good for kids not to be catered to every second. They don't need 8 hours of focused, individualized, "age-appropriate" play. I honestly don't think it's good for them. They need some free play and free exploration, they need sometimes when they have to wait their turn and share, they need to tag along while adults do household tasks, etc.

If money were no object, I'd have a housekeeper, but not two nannies.

[Anonymous]

I have actually been a SAHM parent in this situation and it is really not fun and I would definitely have hired help if it had been an option at the time. So in that sense, I can totally see why someone would hire two nannies until at least the baby drops down to one nap. Being one person taking care of a baby and toddler sucked for me.

HOWEVER, I think a lot of the reasons I needed help are things that an experienced nanny would not have issues with. Like, I was breastfeeding, so that was hard to breastfeed a baby while taking care of a toddler - but a nanny is not breastfeeding. And I am just bad at putting down babies for naps, so I end up doing a lot of holding for naps, and I assume nannies can magically place all babies down in their cribs and they fall asleep for a nice long nap so they can spend time with the toddler.

So I guess if you are able to pay for two nannies, I feel like you probably have enough money to pay for one stellar nanny who is really good at handling a baby and a toddler at the same time.

[Anonymous]

We've always had one nanny and we have two kids, but the older they get, the more I would consider getting a second nanny. Both kids are involved in competitive travel sports and our evenings are becoming impossible running all over the state even though we divide it up between our nanny, me and my husband when he can help. Carpooling is not a viable option on travel teams that draw from all over the state - no neighborhood kids on the same team any longer...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We've always had one nanny and we have two kids, but the older they get, the more I would consider getting a second nanny. Both kids are involved in competitive travel sports and our evenings are becoming impossible running all over the state even though we divide it up between our nanny, me and my husband when he can help. Carpooling is not a viable option on travel teams that draw from all over the state - no neighborhood kids on the same team any longer...

You could use a weekend nanny.