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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like op should get a slight discount too, after all the ratio and amt of attention her child is getting is going to change. Probably something along the lines of op pays $1 less, other family pays $3 more, nanny gets $2 raise.

Newborn care for an extra 2/hr? You are INSANE. So is any nanny who would take that crap.

Pp here, $2 seems to be a pretty standard new baby raise, but I was mostly suggesting those numbers as examples. Depending on the nanny's current rate, they may or may not make sense.

+1. I've never heard of anyone in DC offering a $4 per hour raise for a new baby. I'm sure it happens, but it is not typical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like op should get a slight discount too, after all the ratio and amt of attention her child is getting is going to change. Probably something along the lines of op pays $1 less, other family pays $3 more, nanny gets $2 raise.

Newborn care for an extra 2/hr? You are INSANE. So is any nanny who would take that crap.

Pp here, $2 seems to be a pretty standard new baby raise, but I was mostly suggesting those numbers as examples. Depending on the nanny's current rate, they may or may not make sense.

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.

Anonymous wrote:The two kid family should just get their own nanny at this point. But which family gets to keep this nanny, the one who pays better?

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?

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.

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.