Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?
Find a Conversation
Full-time Nanny with SAHP - Why?
| 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
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
I am curious why you haven't addressed your thoughts on my current situation. My children are now in *othercare* for about 35 hours per week so that I can work at a job that is actually costing me money. It is, in essence, a volunteer position. A full time volunteer position working 37.5 hours per week and probably for 2 or 3 months. Am I being selfish? Am I putting my *desires* ahead of my children's needs even if accepting this position is not my idea of *following my bliss*? I am truly curious as to your take on it.
I'm actually hoping to go back to school part time while my kids are in school, in a program that interests me and that I may be able to develop into a niche (read "tiny")aspect of our business. Not only will I not be *saving* money for my children's education, I will be *spending* it on *myself*. Ack! The horror!
My children will receive far more financial support for their post secondary educations than dh or I did from our parents, even if we never put another penny away. We are also planning to have our mortgage fully paid by the time the kids are college bound - freeing up a good portion of our net income. I'm satisfied that we are making good choices - the pittance I could make working a few hours a week at Walmart just isn't worth the effort. We are not poor or struggling by any means.
I don't know how the views of PJM and slim (or perhaps others too that I'm forgetting) got all twisted here. Here's how I read their posts.
1. Volunteering is not bad. It's good for the world. But it doesn't seem great that a SAHP would spend a lot of her time volunteering at the expense of "providing" for the family. I think the argument came from the fact that PJM used as an example saving for college. If she said health insurance, for example, people may not have disgreed.
2. There are those who spend their "life in leisure." They are not volunteering. They are not taking care of their children. They are not contributing much to the good of society except by being alive. Some of us don't have much respect for this type of a lifestyle.
Do people really disagree that adamantly about the above?
And WRT your question, IF you were "volunteering" *indefinitely* at the expense of providing for your family, especially given that you prefer that your kids be with you, then yea, I'd think something's not right with your situation. But as you said, this situation is for 2 or 3 tiny months so you're asking this question even though you should know that the "debate" does not pertain to your situation.
Pages