MB won't tell me she's pregnant.

[Anonymous]

Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

[Anonymous]

Brilliant, common sense logic, 7:39.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your command of math. When the family has a new child and adds a dollar or two to the nanny's wages (rather than doubling it), it makes perfect sense because the family is, in effect, running a nanny share within the confines of one family. The care you provide PER CHILD will be reduced - the child that used to have 100% of your focus will now get 50% of your focus - and so the amount of care you provide per each child will go down. This is why the rate for the new child is increased only slightly - because the amount of care per child is reduced and is therefore priced at less than full care.

When it's the nanny's baby, the same logic applies. You are running a share, except one baby is yours, and so the amount of childcare PER CHILD goes down. The family pays one half and you pay the other half.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To this idiot above...why on earth would you not be bothered by your MB not telling you she was pregnant after 4 months? What's going on with DCUM??

She out of all people should have been told at the same time the other family was told, if not first after they told their family, considering she's the caregiver!!

This has happened to me twice in nannyshare arrangements, and there wasn't proper discussion in regards to what the new arrangements would be. While I can understand telling non-family members your private situations, when it has to do with other people and their income, 5 months is too long!!

What makes you think it's about you and your income?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your command of math. When the family has a new child and adds a dollar or two to the nanny's wages (rather than doubling it), it makes perfect sense because the family is, in effect, running a nanny share within the confines of one family. The care you provide PER CHILD will be reduced - the child that used to have 100% of your focus will now get 50% of your focus - and so the amount of care you provide per each child will go down. This is why the rate for the new child is increased only slightly - because the amount of care per child is reduced and is therefore priced at less than full care.

When it's the nanny's baby, the same logic applies. You are running a share, except one baby is yours, and so the amount of childcare PER CHILD goes down. The family pays one half and you pay the other half.

Share nannies make more than $1/hour more than a nanny watching a single child. They make more than a nanny watching two children in a single family. For example a nanny might make $15/hour for one child, $16 for 2 children, and $18 for a share. Should a nanny bringing her baby make $8-$9/hour? Do you honestly believe this arrangement results in a true share? I don't think that when a nanny bring her child that you get 50% of a nanny, more like 75%. She's still doing your kids laundry, prepping your kids meals, doing your light housekeeping, etc. your kid dictates schedule, activities, and naps, you still make the rules, etc. Not exactly equal in all things.

[Anonymous]

How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your command of math. When the family has a new child and adds a dollar or two to the nanny's wages (rather than doubling it), it makes perfect sense because the family is, in effect, running a nanny share within the confines of one family. The care you provide PER CHILD will be reduced - the child that used to have 100% of your focus will now get 50% of your focus - and so the amount of care you provide per each child will go down. This is why the rate for the new child is increased only slightly - because the amount of care per child is reduced and is therefore priced at less than full care.

When it's the nanny's baby, the same logic applies. You are running a share, except one baby is yours, and so the amount of childcare PER CHILD goes down. The family pays one half and you pay the other half.

Share nannies make more than $1/hour more than a nanny watching a single child. They make more than a nanny watching two children in a single family. For example a nanny might make $15/hour for one child, $16 for 2 children, and $18 for a share. Should a nanny bringing her baby make $8-$9/hour? Do you honestly believe this arrangement results in a true share? I don't think that when a nanny bring her child that you get 50% of a nanny, more like 75%. She's still doing your kids laundry, prepping your kids meals, doing your light housekeeping, etc. your kid dictates schedule, activities, and naps, you still make the rules, etc. Not exactly equal in all things.

I agree with you that nannies in a share make more than $1/hr vs. watching a single child (for instance, our nanny share nanny commanded $19/hr for two, and $15 for one). I also agree that a nanny bringing her own child will not result in a pure share experience in that the employer is likely to call the shots, and the nanny's child will have to adjust. But it CAN be like a regular share if the nanny and the employer make the appropriate arrangements. My point was to highlight to people why the raise for an additional child isn't doubling what the nanny made before, but rather brings only a few dollars more per hour - because the amount of care per child drops vs. a sole-use nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

The workload doesn't double because there is no space for it to double, unless you agree that prior to introducing the second child the nanny was doing nothing half the time. The amount of care per child does get reduced. She now has to balance the needs of both children during the same amount of time. She may not talk/sing/read/entertain/play as much with each child because she has to fit them both in. She may have to balance the outings with the needs of both children in mind, and that means that sometimes each child won't get to do what they want. Their needs are still met, but they will be met with a more "bare-bones" approach rather than deluxe version. Ask any mother of two whether the amount of attention she was able to pay to #1 went down when #2 entered the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your command of math. When the family has a new child and adds a dollar or two to the nanny's wages (rather than doubling it), it makes perfect sense because the family is, in effect, running a nanny share within the confines of one family. The care you provide PER CHILD will be reduced - the child that used to have 100% of your focus will now get 50% of your focus - and so the amount of care you provide per each child will go down. This is why the rate for the new child is increased only slightly - because the amount of care per child is reduced and is therefore priced at less than full care.

When it's the nanny's baby, the same logic applies. You are running a share, except one baby is yours, and so the amount of childcare PER CHILD goes down. The family pays one half and you pay the other half.

What's really ridiculous is your utter stupidity and lack of basic knowledge or understanding of childhood development. Come back when you get some insight.

Were you raised with a sibling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

The workload doesn't double because there is no space for it to double, unless you agree that prior to introducing the second child the nanny was doing nothing half the time. The amount of care per child does get reduced. She now has to balance the needs of both children during the same amount of time. She may not talk/sing/read/entertain/play as much with each child because she has to fit them both in. She may have to balance the outings with the needs of both children in mind, and that means that sometimes each child won't get to do what they want. Their needs are still met, but they will be met with a more "bare-bones" approach rather than deluxe version. Ask any mother of two whether the amount of attention she was able to pay to #1 went down when #2 entered the picture.

I'm not saying that the older child won't feel a change in amount of attention showed, simply that you can't quantify what exactly that change is, and I don't think 50% is accurate. Everyone's physical needs are still met, laundry, meals, and clean up should still happen. A good nanny can easily feed an infant a bottle and carry on a conversation/read a book/instruct an older child. The reason costs in a share are split is because the two families share the cost of the care. I don't think anyone would go the share or daycare route if they truly believed their kid was getting half/one third of a nanny. All of your child's needs should be met in whatever care setup you choose, and having another child in the mix doesn't change things that drastically. $1 or $2/hour increase for a new baby is fine with me, and I would drop my rate to bring my infant along but definitely not in half. More like $2-$3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how when an MB adds a new baby it only warrants $1 more per hour, but if nanny adds a baby, her wage should be sliced in half lol. Which is it? An oh so drastic change in set up or no big deal? Or is it that the precious snowflake of an MB is inherently better than whatever spawn the help created in her womb? Gotta love the double standards. A baby is a baby and they generally require the same care. If I'd only get a dollar more per hour for your baby, don't be surprised when my discount to you is $1/hour for my kid.

The whole "nanny bringing her baby" thread had me thinking this exact same thing! The double standards are ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is your command of math. When the family has a new child and adds a dollar or two to the nanny's wages (rather than doubling it), it makes perfect sense because the family is, in effect, running a nanny share within the confines of one family. The care you provide PER CHILD will be reduced - the child that used to have 100% of your focus will now get 50% of your focus - and so the amount of care you provide per each child will go down. This is why the rate for the new child is increased only slightly - because the amount of care per child is reduced and is therefore priced at less than full care.

When it's the nanny's baby, the same logic applies. You are running a share, except one baby is yours, and so the amount of childcare PER CHILD goes down. The family pays one half and you pay the other half.

What's really ridiculous is your utter stupidity and lack of basic knowledge or understanding of childhood development. Come back when you get some insight.

Were you raised with a sibling?

You stoop to insults; therefore, you've run out of intelligent things to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

The workload doesn't double because there is no space for it to double, unless you agree that prior to introducing the second child the nanny was doing nothing half the time. The amount of care per child does get reduced. She now has to balance the needs of both children during the same amount of time. She may not talk/sing/read/entertain/play as much with each child because she has to fit them both in. She may have to balance the outings with the needs of both children in mind, and that means that sometimes each child won't get to do what they want. Their needs are still met, but they will be met with a more "bare-bones" approach rather than deluxe version. Ask any mother of two whether the amount of attention she was able to pay to #1 went down when #2 entered the picture.

I'm not saying that the older child won't feel a change in amount of attention showed, simply that you can't quantify what exactly that change is, and I don't think 50% is accurate. Everyone's physical needs are still met, laundry, meals, and clean up should still happen. A good nanny can easily feed an infant a bottle and carry on a conversation/read a book/instruct an older child. The reason costs in a share are split is because the two families share the cost of the care. I don't think anyone would go the share or daycare route if they truly believed their kid was getting half/one third of a nanny. All of your child's needs should be met in whatever care setup you choose, and having another child in the mix doesn't change things that drastically. $1 or $2/hour increase for a new baby is fine with me, and I would drop my rate to bring my infant along but definitely not in half. More like $2-$3.

I don't think that's the reason; rather, the reason is that neither family can afford the cost of a sole-use nanny, and they agree that half a nanny is better than group care. I was a part of a nanny share once, and I knew that my baby is getting half a nanny - that was fine with me because that was enough, and because it's better than the amount of attention he would get in a daycare. The nanny share arrangement implicitly acknowledges that children in a shared care arrangement get less than full-on amount of attention, and that's why it costs less per child. If being in a nanny share was the same as having a sole-use nanny, nannies would be justified in charging twice the regular amount (so, $15 x 2 vs. say $18 or $19).

My son is in preschool now and you better believe that when he is in the classroom, he's getting less attention than he would have received in a one-on-one situation. Of course he does. That's the reality of group care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

The workload doesn't double because there is no space for it to double, unless you agree that prior to introducing the second child the nanny was doing nothing half the time. The amount of care per child does get reduced. She now has to balance the needs of both children during the same amount of time. She may not talk/sing/read/entertain/play as much with each child because she has to fit them both in. She may have to balance the outings with the needs of both children in mind, and that means that sometimes each child won't get to do what they want. Their needs are still met, but they will be met with a more "bare-bones" approach rather than deluxe version. Ask any mother of two whether the amount of attention she was able to pay to #1 went down when #2 entered the picture.

I'm not saying that the older child won't feel a change in amount of attention showed, simply that you can't quantify what exactly that change is, and I don't think 50% is accurate. Everyone's physical needs are still met, laundry, meals, and clean up should still happen. A good nanny can easily feed an infant a bottle and carry on a conversation/read a book/instruct an older child. The reason costs in a share are split is because the two families share the cost of the care. I don't think anyone would go the share or daycare route if they truly believed their kid was getting half/one third of a nanny. All of your child's needs should be met in whatever care setup you choose, and having another child in the mix doesn't change things that drastically. $1 or $2/hour increase for a new baby is fine with me, and I would drop my rate to bring my infant along but definitely not in half. More like $2-$3.

I don't think that's the reason; rather, the reason is that neither family can afford the cost of a sole-use nanny, and they agree that half a nanny is better than group care. I was a part of a nanny share once, and I knew that my baby is getting half a nanny - that was fine with me because that was enough, and because it's better than the amount of attention he would get in a daycare. The nanny share arrangement implicitly acknowledges that children in a shared care arrangement get less than full-on amount of attention, and that's why it costs less per child. If being in a nanny share was the same as having a sole-use nanny, nannies would be justified in charging twice the regular amount (so, $15 x 2 vs. say $18 or $19).

My son is in preschool now and you better believe that when he is in the classroom, he's getting less attention than he would have received in a one-on-one situation. Of course he does. That's the reality of group care.

How old is your son now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does the care per child get reduced? Does she change diapers half as often? Feed them half as many meals? put them down for half as many naps? listen to their needs half the time? She still has to care for both kids 100%, you can't really quantify the decrease in attention. Ideally all their needs will continue to get met, its just a matter of whether the nanny can essentially meet double the needs, and handle doubling her workload.

The workload doesn't double because there is no space for it to double, unless you agree that prior to introducing the second child the nanny was doing nothing half the time. The amount of care per child does get reduced. She now has to balance the needs of both children during the same amount of time. She may not talk/sing/read/entertain/play as much with each child because she has to fit them both in. She may have to balance the outings with the needs of both children in mind, and that means that sometimes each child won't get to do what they want. Their needs are still met, but they will be met with a more "bare-bones" approach rather than deluxe version. Ask any mother of two whether the amount of attention she was able to pay to #1 went down when #2 entered the picture.

I'm not saying that the older child won't feel a change in amount of attention showed, simply that you can't quantify what exactly that change is, and I don't think 50% is accurate. Everyone's physical needs are still met, laundry, meals, and clean up should still happen. A good nanny can easily feed an infant a bottle and carry on a conversation/read a book/instruct an older child. The reason costs in a share are split is because the two families share the cost of the care. I don't think anyone would go the share or daycare route if they truly believed their kid was getting half/one third of a nanny. All of your child's needs should be met in whatever care setup you choose, and having another child in the mix doesn't change things that drastically. $1 or $2/hour increase for a new baby is fine with me, and I would drop my rate to bring my infant along but definitely not in half. More like $2-$3.

I don't think that's the reason; rather, the reason is that neither family can afford the cost of a sole-use nanny, and they agree that half a nanny is better than group care. I was a part of a nanny share once, and I knew that my baby is getting half a nanny - that was fine with me because that was enough, and because it's better than the amount of attention he would get in a daycare. The nanny share arrangement implicitly acknowledges that children in a shared care arrangement get less than full-on amount of attention, and that's why it costs less per child. If being in a nanny share was the same as having a sole-use nanny, nannies would be justified in charging twice the regular amount (so, $15 x 2 vs. say $18 or $19).

My son is in preschool now and you better believe that when he is in the classroom, he's getting less attention than he would have received in a one-on-one situation. Of course he does. That's the reality of group care.

How old is your son now?

Three.