Anonymous wrote:In a share, your child will be exposed to the other baby's germs. And if they have older siblings in preschool, they will be sick a lot. An au pair is going to pick up her own germs from friends, but she won't be putting toys in her mouth.

Yes, but look at how many threads there have been about Au pairs not washing hands properly/not using soap/not showering regularly... yikes.

In a share, your child will be exposed to the other baby's germs. And if they have older siblings in preschool, they will be sick a lot. An au pair is going to pick up her own germs from friends, but she won't be putting toys in her mouth.

An au pair is much more expensive, but more reliable care. We had an au pair extraordinaire who had worked in a pediatrics ward for her national service, and had worked in an infant care center for two years. Very strong driver.

Nannie’s have more experience. Especially with babies

I would go with a nanny.

AP is so mentally draining and I can’t wait for my current AP to leave.

Do not get an AP because you think it’s the cheaper option. You won’t know the true cost of the program until you add it up after she leaves. I probably spent a good $7k more than I had expected because I didn’t factor in things like, car accident (her fault), extra hotel rooms/food/tickets during our vacations, that she would eat A TON, both at home and when we got take out, throwing her a bday party, buying her gifts for Xmas and all other Xmas related stuff, wear and tear on my stuff at the house, etc etc.

Nanny share is a much cleaner arrangement, though you are correct that it will give you less flexibility with schedules.

Fwiw our AP grossly exaggerated her experience with kids. Like, she was “infant qualified” by the agency yet didn’t know how to feed a bottle / change a diaper.

In your case I'd go with a nanny share.

Au pairs are great for older kids, given the flexibility and energy they bring. We've always selected APs on the older side who're overall more mature than most of their peers, but I would not feel comfortable leaving an infant in their care full time, even the infant-care certified ones. For one thing, their childcare experiences are almost always inflated and exaggerated. For another, the stories our APs tell us about their AP friends are not very inspiring.

Another thing to consider is the living arrangement. Having someone living in your home brings separate challenges. You have to screen both for child care AND roommate compatibility. For our friends and ourselves, it's been a mixed bag. The clean and considerate ones are exceptions rather than the rule. And then there's the loss of privacy.

All in all, I'm glad we've done it, and will probably continue to do it for a few more years as my kids are still lower elementary. But for the early years I'd go with a nanny share.

I think if you look at the costs over a year you will find an au pair is more expensive especially if you only have one kid. The main advantage of an ai pair is the coat is the same for multiple kids and the flexible schedule. If you need pretty standard hours I would go with a share..

Is anyone able to weigh in on the benefits of an au pair over a nanny share (or vice versa)? I'm comparing them on the assumption that they are both potentially affordable, but with the nanny share likely being more expensive. Obviously the au pair program has the unique cultural exchange aspect. But putting that aside, I'm trying to decide which would be better practically and for my baby (6 months). It seems to me the biggest benefit of a nanny share is that you would be getting a childcare professional, with more expertise and requiring less instruction. By contrast, an au pair would provide more individualized attention, might be more receptive to instruction, and could be more flexible with your schedule. Does this sound right?