Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You wouldn't pay 1/3 because typical practice is to give the nanny a $1-4 raise per sibling, not double their salary. I also strongly agree that a toddler is WAY more work than an infant! I've been in a nanny share previously and got $2 more per hour from the family with 2 kids

So it sounds like a nanny is always going to make more money doing a share for multiple families, as opposed to caring for the same number of children in a single family?

Yes, that is how it should be in principle. Consider it payment for the headache of having 4 bosses, 2 families, possibly switching locations, and lots of different needs to meet.

Anonymous wrote:You wouldn't pay 1/3 because typical practice is to give the nanny a $1-4 raise per sibling, not double their salary. I also strongly agree that a toddler is WAY more work than an infant! I've been in a nanny share previously and got $2 more per hour from the family with 2 kids

So it sounds like a nanny is always going to make more money doing a share for multiple families, as opposed to caring for the same number of children in a single family?

You wouldn't pay 1/3 because typical practice is to give the nanny a $1-4 raise per sibling, not double their salary. I also strongly agree that a toddler is WAY more work than an infant! I've been in a nanny share previously and got $2 more per hour from the family with 2 kids

Anonymous wrote:If each child will get the same amount of attention from the nanny, why shouldn't it be 1/3 per child?

The logic of that argument is sound but the reality is that if the other family is paying 2/3 of the nanny share, they're going to be better off just getting their own nanny. That leaves OP looking for another share or paying 100% of her own nanny's salary.

OP, your coworker was correct that 40/60 is more common not because toddlers take less work (SRSLY has she ever met a 3 year old?! Give me a newborn any day if we are talking about easy) but because otherwise there is no financial incentive for a two-child family to participate in the share.

If each child will get the same amount of attention from the nanny, why shouldn't it be 1/3 per child?

I agree with pp. If you pay $25, it would be divided near a $10/15 or $11/14 split.

I don't think there's a completely fair way to do a three child nanny share price split. Paying just one third, means the other family pays almost what they would for a private nanny, while you would be getting an insanely good deal. Considering that, in practice, a nanny for two children is generally a few dollars more an hour than a nanny for one child, somewhere close to a 40/60 split seems reasonable.

For example, if the nanny makes $24/hr a $16/$8 split doesn't feel very fair. $14/$10 or $13/$10 gives both parties a substantial, and fair, discount from a private nanny price,and still gives you more than the normal differential between one and two children.

We're expecting our first child next month. Our friends, who already have a 3-year-old, also are expecting at the same time. We're talking about doing a nannyshare together. I had assumed that we would pay 1/3 and they would pay 2/3 (since they'll have two kids). But my co-worker is in a very similar arrangement, and she said that she pays about 40% for her infant, and the other family pays 60% for their toddler and infant. She said that's pretty standard because toddlers take less work. Is there any standard practice for this sort of arrangement?