Nannyshare 3 kids how to split the pay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh and yes, the nanny is fine with the extra child. My only concern is that if we give a $4 raise, is that fair for all concerned? Or should we take a slight discount.

Why would you be giving the $4 raise? It's the other family, no? It's starting to sound like you're nickel and diming and should just stop. The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

I am so tired of hearing nannies wagging their fingers at MBs with this "She's taking care of your CHILD" nonsense, as if that requires parents to throw all rational thought and sound financial decision making aside and bow down before these saintly, put-upon caregivers, without whom all our children would be dirty, unfed, and woefully self-centered.

Someone hit a little too close to home. Too bad. Time for you to express a little gratitude to the woman raising your child.

So tired of this entitlement. Whoever is doing your parenting job for you, deserving a decent wage AND a little respect out of you.

*deserves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the OP comes back, I hope she can answer these questions:

How old are the current children in the share?
What is the nanny making now?
Hours per week?

I agree with 16:54. That assessment is spot on.

Example:

Share with 2 kids, for the sake of the argument, $20/hr, each family pays $10.

Share with 3 kids, for the sake of the argument, $24/hr, each family pays $8.

So in OP's situation, since two out of three kids belong to the same family, the other family's rate would go up to $16 ($8x2), OP's rate would go down ($8 instead of $10). The nanny's total pay would be higher because her workload increases.

You are shooting yourself in the foot with your tunnel vision. It's already been said by several posters that it's essentially more economical for the (pending) two kid family to have their own nanny at $16/hr. Why would they put up with a share if there's NO financial incentive for them? Seems to me that they are better prepared to pay the nanny a better rate.
OP is clearly the unfortunately loser here and will have to find a new share or resort to daycare, so she can maintain her $8/hr babysitting rates.

What's my tunnel vision got to do with anything? The family said they wanted to maintain a share. They are obviously free to get their own nanny but that's not the scenario we are talking about, are we? The rates I included above are simply for the sake of the argument, it's not a given that she'll be getting $24/hr for all three kids.

And to be honest, if your kid is one out of THREE in a share, well, at that point, it may as well be home daycare. At that point the benefits of one-on-one care - the whole reason people get nannies vs. daycares - just may not apply any longer. The jump from three to five kids in home daycare is not much, and there will be two people there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^No discount, she just doesn't doesn't give nanny a yearly raise. It ends up balancing out anyways.

Why would the nanny not get a yearly raise?

The nanny should absolutely get an annual raise. She'll be making more money with three kids, too. The cost per child in this arrangement would go down, so the other family would pay more, and the OP would pay less.

Example:

Share with 2 kids, for the sake of the argument, $20/hr, each family pays $10.

Share with 3 kids, for the sake of the argument, $24/hr, each family pays $8.

So in OP's situation, since two out of three kids belong to the same family, the other family's rate would go up to $16 ($8x2), OP's rate would go down ($8 instead of $10). The nanny's total pay would be higher because her workload increases.

Only a stupid nanny would agree to your nonsense. IF this nanny can manage the workload, she should expect no less than 25/hr.

Did you miss the part where I said "for the sake of the argument"? Why are you getting hung up on numbers?

Even if the nanny expects, and gets, $300/hr, the same logic would still apply: in a share with three kids, the rate PER kid would be total hourly rate divided by three.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

[Anonymous]

OP, we did this in our share family. Nanny made 20/hr for 2 kids, we raised her to 22 (two older ones off to preschool during part of day as well). I paid 8 for one child, they paid 14 for 2. Cost for them still less than nanny on their own, cost for me reduced slightly b/c nanny would have less overall time/attention to each child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Continued...OP, to be fair to yourself, you should look at the facts. The facts are that you are currently paying for 1/2 of a nanny. Once the new baby arrives, you'll be getting 1/3 of a nanny, assuming she juggles it all well. So because the scope of service you receive will be diminished, you should in all fairness pay less.

Your paranoid condition is getting worse with every post. Does a second bio child get half of a mother? Many of them get a better mother and most of us know that. Why do you think so many parents are eager for a second child? Mind you, I did NOT say all, before you jump down my throat.

You're barking up the wrong tree. Love isn't quantifiable, but time and money is. The nanny is not the mother, so a child in a nanny share does not get a better nanny just because there is now another child around. I don't suppose you have any objections to the fact that nannies in share receive less PER CHILD? Or do you think parents in nanny shares should pay the same rate they would for one-on-one care?

FYI, there isn't any "most of us." There's just you.

And the reasons parents are eager for a second child is not so the first one gets a better mother.

+1. I agree that the family who is not adding a second child to the share should get a small rate reduction, because their child will not be getting less attention. The problem, though, is that if one family pays $8 per hour and the other family pays $16, the family with two kids would be better off getting a nanny of its own. They can easily find a nanny for two kids at $17 per hour, and probably some good options at $16 per hour as well.

That's the big issue with a 3 kid share. Unless its 3 different families, it makes no economic sense for the 2 kid family to be in a share any longer. It is a hell of a lot of work doing a 3 child share and as someone who has done it, I would need at least $24/hour to feel compensated, but I understand that doesn't make financial sense for one family. The only reason a family might do this is if they have an awesome nanny and want to maintain stability for their child. What is not fair is shortchanging the nanny on her rate to force the situation to be a financial win for the families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

Horrifying example of her child and the raising of her child, as a commodity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

Horrifying example of her child and the raising of her child, as a commodity.

Child-raising service IS a commodity, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Geez I did not expect this post to turn out with these kinds of responses. We have made the decision to maintain the nanny as a 3 child share. My child will be in preschool in the mornings and I would still like to maintain the nanny for stability reasons. I also still plan on paying her while my child is in preschool. It does benefit the other family because they are also getting a wonderful nanny and not paying the full rate of a nanny on their own. The ages of the children are 2.5, 2, and soon to be newborn. The nanny can take on the responsibility mainly due to the fact that one child will be in preschool half a day. I know that people do 3 child shares, so this isn't crazy! And I am not interested in home daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

Horrifying example of her child and the raising of her child, as a commodity.

Child-raising service IS a commodity, whether you like it or not.

Thank goodness OP doesn't seem to feel the same way as the above poster. OP values the important stability that working this out, will give her child and the other family.
Kudos to you, OP. We love you.
-Nanny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

Horrifying example of her child and the raising of her child, as a commodity.

Child-raising service IS a commodity, whether you like it or not.

Thank goodness OP doesn't seem to feel the same way as the above poster. OP values the important stability that working this out, will give her child and the other family.
Kudos to you, OP. We love you.
-Nanny

If the service you provide isn't a commodity, why don't you work for free?

The stability will only matter for as long as everyone is pleased with the situation. People move on all the time. Two years from now, that share will no longer exist, and believe it or not, the sun will still come up every morning, and all the children involved will go on to lead happy lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Geez I did not expect this post to turn out with these kinds of responses. We have made the decision to maintain the nanny as a 3 child share. My child will be in preschool in the mornings and I would still like to maintain the nanny for stability reasons. I also still plan on paying her while my child is in preschool. It does benefit the other family because they are also getting a wonderful nanny and not paying the full rate of a nanny on their own. The ages of the children are 2.5, 2, and soon to be newborn. The nanny can take on the responsibility mainly due to the fact that one child will be in preschool half a day. I know that people do 3 child shares, so this isn't crazy! And I am not interested in home daycare.

Can you share what financial arrangements did you put in place? Who's paying how much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That's the big issue with a 3 kid share. Unless its 3 different families, it makes no economic sense for the 2 kid family to be in a share any longer. It is a hell of a lot of work doing a 3 child share and as someone who has done it, I would need at least $24/hour to feel compensated, but I understand that doesn't make financial sense for one family. The only reason a family might do this is if they have an awesome nanny and want to maintain stability for their child. What is not fair is shortchanging the nanny on her rate to force the situation to be a financial win for the families.

This is a 3-way poster. I agree with you and I never said that the nanny should be shortchanged. Whatever the nanny wants to make, she should make if the families agree. All I was saying was that the rate should divide 3 ways, give or take, PER KID. In one of the examples above, the poster reported paying $22/hr, where her contribution was $8/hr, and the other family's $14/hr for two kids. That's an example of how this might work. If that the only way they can get or retain the nanny they want, good for them.

[Anonymous]

This is why details are important. OP in her follow up makes clear her kid will be gone part of the day. That is exactly the scenario we had when we transitioned to a 3 kid share - nanny got a bit more but not tons given that a kid was also moving to preschool for a good bit if the day. We split it 60/40 since 1/3 and 2/3 seemed to not be quite balanced enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The woman is taking care of your child, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your dirty work. Goodness!
I bet you the nanny's going with the OTHER family.... and you're next post will be about how generous YOU always are. We get it.

You can make that same argument about absolutely any other paid service.

The man is painting your walls, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

The man is conducting open-heart surgery on you, for God's sake, so you don't have to do your own, show some respect!

The man is tuning up your car, for God's sake, so you don't have to, show some respect!

Just because the service you provide happens to be childcare, it doesn't exempt it from logic and the laws of supply and demand.

If the nanny goes with the other family, oh well, there's lots of other nannies out there. The OP can always find another share with a reasonable number of kids (i.e. TWO) that isn't starting to sound like home daycare.

Horrifying example of her child and the raising of her child, as a commodity.

Child-raising service IS a commodity, whether you like it or not.

Thank goodness OP doesn't seem to feel the same way as the above poster. OP values the important stability that working this out, will give her child and the other family.
Kudos to you, OP. We love you.
-Nanny

If the service you provide isn't a commodity, why don't you work for free?

The stability will only matter for as long as everyone is pleased with the situation. People move on all the time. Two years from now, that share will no longer exist, and be
lieve it or not, the sun will still come up every morning, and all the children involved will go on to lead happy lives.

I have worked for free, thank you.

You make yourself sound like the ultimate materialist. Maybe you take pride in that label?

By no means do I expect you to know this, but stability IS actually a critical ingredient when raising young children. That's why many parents (and nannies!), will bend over backwards to work towards a longterm relationship.

Children pay a price for every major upheaval in their lives. Smart parents do their best to minimize unnecessary changeovers of primary caregivers.