My parents used to put money (like $1 an hour) in a "family fund" when they left us alone. We only got "paid" if we all behaved. That meant I--the oldest--didn't have to be too bossy and everyone was responsible for being good.

We used the fund for stuff like going ice skating or to the movies as a family. Sometimes when my parents went out instead of cooking dinner the kids would make a group decision use fund money to order pizza.

We don't pay our 15 year old to watch our 5 year old if it's an hour here or there while we run errands, and in that case she's not expected to entertain him or do anything other than keep him safe or help him with something he can't figure out. But we do pay her if we are going out on a date or we need coverage when he's not in school. In that case we pay babysitting rates ($12 an hour) and she is expected to feed him and come up with some entertainment activities (she usually does soccer clinics or building projects with him) and not just leave him to his own devices. This arrangement seems to have worked out well, and it does help to make sure she doesn't feel taken advantage of.

Anonymous wrote:Hell no. Helping to care for other siblings is part of being a family. Just like household chores. That is expected, not an optional way to earn extra cash.

+1

I'm confused by the PPs who pay their kids to watch themselves. I don't get it?

Hell no. Helping to care for other siblings is part of being a family. Just like household chores. That is expected, not an optional way to earn extra cash.

I'm the oldest and I was never paid. It never crossed my mind that I should be paid because I was raised properly - that's my opinion on this It's just two siblings staying home alone together...the older isn't actually babysitting as in entertaining the younger one...they are just home together. This is something older siblings do occasionally and it sends the absolute wrong message to pay for this. Never ever would I pay my older to watch the younger. They are most likely both excited to be home alone and have the house to themselves. That's the pay. No money needed.

If you live somewhere where they can walk to a grocery store together you could leave them 5 bucks to go and buy themselves some treats for their afternoon home alone. Or go with them the day before and buy them some chips to share. Something like that I'd consider but certainly not paying anyone.

We don't pay our teen to watch his (much younger) sibling. We don't ask very often, and we consider it a normal part of what family members do for each other.

I would. It's your kid/ your responsibility, not theirs.

I paid my oldest for that.

I know had I been expected to watch a sibling as a kid for no money, I would be resentful towards him/her and my parents. It also allows for them to get a bit of money and learn basic financial facts.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't do it for kids with such a small age difference. As PPs said, it's just a recipe for resentment. If the younger one was under 8, it would be different.

+1 I just had this discussion w/ DH last week. We've already been letting our 10 and 11 yr olds stay home alone for an hour or two during the day while we do errands or go to an appt but for the first time we left them home alone in the evening while we went out to dinner (about 2 hrs). In the past we'd have paid a neighbor's teen to watch them but that didn't seem necessary. He thought maybe we should pay the older one (no way IMO with such a small age difference) and we discussed just splitting it between them but I didn't want to get them used to the idea that they get paid to stay home and be responsible. At what point would we stop paying them?? It's enough that they get our trust, a pizza, and an evening to watch TV without their nagging parents

Better know that the youngest can fend for themselves.

And that the older on is there is case of a true emergency.

Can't imagine the older one is going to police the other.