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: 10-05-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 3:47pm

"Relax" Iam relaxed pnjm ! Even more relaxed now that i have a nanny :-)


Edited to add~ what does how many hours i volunteer or tend to other responsiblities than my home and family

Silver                                  
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 3:57pm
Careful~ i love my hummer~ do I have to have a reason for driving it?
Silver                                  
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 4:03pm
Are you so sure that the people at homeless shelters are there because their families abandoned them? My MIL worked for years at a local shelter and will be quick to tell you that many of them are mentally and/or drug addicts. Mental illness and drug addiction are both things that a family can pitch in to pay the treatment for. There is one catch: unless the person is legally considered a danger to themselves and others they can't be dragged into treatment against their wishes by their families. And they can't be institutionalized against their wishes. If they are not about to kill themselves, they are free to walk right out of the hospital/treatment center and they often do and promptly become homeless (or return to the homelessness they were dragged from).

A sad fact about mentally ill or drug addicted adults is that they simply walk away from helping hands put out by their families. The schizophrenic ones may not even be aware of what they're doing, but their families can't legally force them into institutions and can't legally force them to stay at the family house.

And then there are the older ones who may not even HAVE families. Not everyone has a family. Some people have no siblings and the single parent who raised them is dead. They may have aunts and uncles whose existence they are unaware of (and vice versa) because single mother was not close to her own family.

Then there are those volunteer activities that are NOT making up for a lack in the family:

Volunteering for school (that's making up for a lack of paid employees)

Volunteering to provide life enhancing extras for people with disabilities: it's not like Special Olympics is something parents can do at home.

Volunteering for political causes and causes that are not about helping specific people such as enviromental volunteering (planting trees and such).

Volunteering to help the poor. The rest of their family is just as poor as they are. Habitat for Humanity is not filling a void created by uncaring families.

Battered women's shelters: they SHOULDN'T run to their families. That's the first place their abuser will look for them.

Suicide Hotline and all other hotlines. If their families could fill this need, they surely would. They probably already tried. But sometimes you just need the ear of an anonymous person who knows the right thing to say.

And on and on and on.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 4:06pm
So if Melinda Gates hired a nanny and went to work 40 or more hours a week and received a check so that she could derive personal satisifaction from using her skills and talents in the workforce, that would be fine? Even though there is no way a measly 6 figure corporate law job could raise their SOL at this point. BUT if she hired a nanny and went to work pro bono 40 hours or more a week using her degree, skills and talents but DID NOT draw a salary from it, she would be a negligent parent?

What about Princess Diana or Fergie? What about all of the first ladies and true corporate wives? Are they all negligent parents? None of them get paid for the over-40-hour-a-week they put in in their official and unofficial capacities.

What about other wealthy people that could support communities on the interest of their prinicpal holdings but hire a nanny and go to work anyway. Is that okay? And if so, why? I don't mean the run of the mill working wealthy guy, I mean the stratospherically wealthy people that couldn't increase their SOL by drawing a salary. What are they doing for their family by working?

SUS

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 4:22pm

Some things I was wondering myself but was not sure how to address. Im glad you did.


I too would like to know why is it that

Silver                                  
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 4:49pm
I could have sworn you were a person who thought particularly highly of Hillary Clinton/Princess Diana types who did tremendous amounts of unpaid work for various important causes. I didn't know you thought they weren't doing anything as important as had they been AH with their kid(s) all day, every day.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-05-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 4:57pm

For me, I have other responsiblities than my children and home so I have a nanny who is like family to care for my greatest blessings:-)

Silver                                  
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-29-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 5:13pm
<> i'll see if i can help.

<>

exactly right. different states have different requirements, training programs, licensing requirements...CT has one of the most rigorous programs which is why, if you get a teaching degree here, you can teach just about anywhere in the country without applying for another license.

as for substitutes (in CT) -- the only requirement is that the person have a bachelor's degree.

eileen

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Fri, 02-20-2004 - 6:28pm
I know you have said that my situation is not relevent to this debate because while I am using othercare when I don't *need* to it is temporary. I am wondering what you think about dads who WOH, but it is not essential... dads like... my dh? As I indicated he chooses to WOH when he could SAH and be with his kids 24/7. Is he selfish b/c he is pursuing his interests. Yes, he gets paid, but he does not need the money. It is not even used for extras. LOL. I often forget that his income is the income that is not necessary because it is the actual money that we use. His pay is direct deposited into his bank account and that is what we spend. We have always lived off of his income which has been our strategy for accumulating wealth - living well below our means. In any event, his choice to work truly does not benefit the family one iota. It fulfills him personally. You never did answer... so do tell us, what about dads who work or are away from their children for *non essential* activities?
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-21-2003
Sat, 02-21-2004 - 12:04pm
I don't want to brag, but yes, our childrens college funds ARE fully funded. We just made the last installment last month, finito, finalmente, done. They can go to any university they want, including private, expensive ones, there is enough money, and they are still 4 and 6 years away from attending. Grad school is another story, we'll probably start separate accounts for that now, but I'm not even sure that they going to want to attend, so those accounts can't be education specific.

I don't know the particulars of the "vehicles" you asked about, you'd have to ask our financial planner, that's why we pay him. He is a partner with the LPH Group (Lomas, Pratt, Heaney wealth management advisors)in Westport, CT. Feel free to make an appointment but you'll need investable assets of 250K or more to get one.

I don't really want to tell you about it, but if you insist, there you have it.

Pages