If it makes sense for you financially go for it. As an MB who has done shares though I will say it adds a level of complexity and can create problems if everyone isn't on the same page. For example many families have different ideas about what's "too sick" for the share. Also if the other family does something your nanny isn't thrilled with, does she come to you? Them? We found that doing a similar set up caused some stress because the other family was nice but they tended to push boundaries just a bit - not so much that it was egregious but enough that over time it caused some strain even though we spoke to them directly about it. Our nanny felt sort of caught in the middle in the sense that she didn't want to do some of the things they were asking but also didn't want them to back out. I know it's all dependent on the particular mix but I would say to just think about it. It also means if your kiddo is sick the nanny may not be able to stay with them so you'd have to. We had a good family, really nothing wrong with them but one of the advantages of a nanny is that they can customize things to you and that's not really as much the case with a share. Also we did find there was a bit more wear and tear and mess on the house even though our nanny was good about trying to keep things clean.

I'm a MB with 4 kids. I currently pay $20/hr (not in DC), and have been for years. I also think $400-$700/month in savings is a lot of money. $120/wk is like one day of nanny care per week paid for.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Odd how OP never mentions if this would be a good thing for their (only) child. Do you know the other child/family, OP? What's your relationship with them? Your financial profit is only PART of the big picture, so don't be so greedy.

OP here. We just met the other family but they seem awesome. We live just a block away from each other and our kiddos are the exact same age. I understand that the financial piece is only part of this (for both us and nanny). I also don't think it will be a permanent thing - once either this family or our family has a second child, the share would end. On our side it would end with us keeping our nanny on FT and paying her more. So I felt like this would be a nice interim solution that could be a win-win for all parties involved, including the kids who will have a friend to play with all day now. It also might be nice for our nanny too; our child is extremely active and requires a lot of entertainment, except when other kids are around in which case she is content playing with them!

If the kids get along, I think it's a great idea. The hard part is having two bosses for the nanny. Think through situations that might cause problems, like sick kids/sick nanny, nap expectations, food, classes that one family wants, driving with both kids, notice period for ending the share, and how to resolve any conflicts. It would probably be a good idea to plan on a meeting after the first month to iron out any wrinkles that come up, too.

It's so funny how some of the nannies on this board think adding a second kid of the same age is sooooooo much more work ... unless it's their own, in which case it's no extra work at all, and in fact a huge bonus for the NK.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't even consider doing this.

For the pure reason that you won't be saving very much money in the long run, payments will require a lot more math + your child will be receiving much less individualized personal attention and care. Lose lose.

OP here. I ran the numbers and this arrangement would save us anywhere from $5k-$9k/year. I know it doesn't seem like a lot in the whole scheme of things, but $400-$700/mo would really be a big help for us right now.

It's not just us I'm thinking of though. I know the delta in pay would probably mean a lot to our nanny and we want to do what we can to retain her. My hope is that this proposal would make her more apt to stick around and not the other way around.....

Anonymous wrote:Odd how OP never mentions if this would be a good thing for their (only) child. Do you know the other child/family, OP? What's your relationship with them? Your financial profit is only PART of the big picture, so don't be so greedy.

OP here. We just met the other family but they seem awesome. We live just a block away from each other and our kiddos are the exact same age. I understand that the financial piece is only part of this (for both us and nanny). I also don't think it will be a permanent thing - once either this family or our family has a second child, the share would end. On our side it would end with us keeping our nanny on FT and paying her more. So I felt like this would be a nice interim solution that could be a win-win for all parties involved, including the kids who will have a friend to play with all day now. It also might be nice for our nanny too; our child is extremely active and requires a lot of entertainment, except when other kids are around in which case she is content playing with them!

Odd how OP never mentions if this would be a good thing for their (only) child. Do you know the other child/family, OP? What's your relationship with them? Your financial profit is only PART of the big picture, so don't be so greedy.

I wouldn't even consider doing this.

For the pure reason that you won't be saving very much money in the long run, payments will require a lot more math + your child will be receiving much less individualized personal attention and care. Lose lose.