Anonymous wrote:If 00:57's horrors had any basis in reality, no loving parent would have a second child. Everyone knows that the benefits of a second child far out weigh the negatives.
-Signed by the parent of an only child
First of all, every parent who has a second child acknowledges that the second child gets less attention early on than the first did. The benefits of having a sibling may outweigh this, but I'm not so sure that the benefits of spending a couple of years in a nanny share do, especially if the paying parents' child is younger than about 2.5 or 3, which is about when kids first start to be capable of really forming relationships with other kids. Before that, their developmental needs are best met by one-on-one adult attention. The real benefit of siblings kicks in later.
Second, no one is saying that shares are inherently bad, but there is an established market rate for share nannies and that rate reflects the fact that the nanny's attention is divided among two families. In this case, one of those two families happens to be the nannies own family. There are lots of ways for parents with one child to make sure that child has socialization time; the issue here is whether parents should pay a nanny more to bring her own child than she would get paid to work with two children, neither of whom is her own.
Third, the OP here wants some light housekeeping. Share nannies typically do less of this than non-share nannies, because, again, the share nanny's time is divided among two kids, one of whom is probably past the age of napping much.