Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?
1258
Tue, 02-10-2004 - 6:41pm
Something I've often wondered about, but never had the opportunity to ask. Why do SAHM or SAHD need a full time nanny, especially when they aren't working from home. I can easily see the need if the SAHP is a WAHP, but what is the logic for a full time nanny otherwise?

Any comments?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 10:53am
I can understand why another family would prioritize having a SAHP over having dual WOHPs, so I can understand priorities other than mine.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:00am
Yes.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:08am
Although this is not my situation, I can pretty easily envision a scenario where one spouse would volunteer FT while the other did paid work FT. The paid spouse may make so much money that the other spouse couldn't meaningfully change their lifestyle. They both have a favorite cause. Paid spouse could contribute many $ to this cause, but an even better use of the family resources would be for other spouse to volunteer FT to the cause.

Envision something like this: both spouses are fervent supporters of candidate X for president. They could contribute $ to the campaign, and probably do, but they mutually agree that the best use of their pooled resources would be for not-employed spouse to volunteer FT on the campaign until such time as X either loses or wins.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-1999
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:10am
Then why don't you take it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:14am

So the parents agree to use ft other care during the campaign?


I can see why one parent SAH, or volunteers alot if there are no children involved.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-1999
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:15am
Because they don't need the income from working and there is no detrement to their children because they are away 40 hours a week.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:17am
Agreed.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:27am
Why would you assume someone who was at home while the kids were in school was "refusing" to work? I don't plan on going back to work next year when the kids are in school for the exact same reasons that I am not working right now - balancing dh's career and the kids' schedules with my own job would simply be too difficult for us.

FTR, we do have some college savings, but it is thus far modest - definitely not enough for two full free rides through a 4 year university. We are okay with that. Why would anyone else find that "disgusting"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:31am
I have no proof but I'll toss out a guess that's it's happening this very minute on both the Kerry and Edwards campaigns.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 02-19-2004 - 11:42am
Not true. I don't think anyone has said that would be less selfish. Seems to me the point is it would be no more and no less selfish. Edited to add that I also disagree with your doom and gloom prognosis. I'd imagine your boys are bright and diligent enough to earn hefty scholarships or have PT jobs that will keep them from needing to sell their souls to afford State U.


Edited 2/19/2004 11:49:38 AM ET by cocoapop

Pages