We just received a flyer offering babysitting services from a girl in the neighborhood. On the flyer was the phrase "fee determined by number of children." We had a babysitter a few years ago that was the same way-- she charged $2.00/hr/kid. Luckily, we only had three at the time! I know that many subscribe to this philosophy-- the more children, the more you pay. It makes sense, in a way. And it sounds great for the parents of ONE child. (: The way I see it, however, is TIME is TIME. Is a sitter really worth less because she is just watching 1-2 kids? I would feel silly paying a sitter say, $2.00/hr to watch "just Elli" while I take the rest of my kids to a movie. (Elli obviously doesn't do movies). And along the same line, I can't afford to pay a young teenager $12.00/hr to watch my six kids, though I would LOVE to pay that much if I could-- we have some darling sitters!
In truth, I think it's sometimes easier to watch more children at once. I remember babysitting an only child and it was exhausting, because that child wanted all of my attention. In our particular case, I really think watching all six is easier than watching just one or two. The big kids are a huge help with "the littles" and know all the routines. They all play together really well.
So... question #1: Am I totally off base? Are we underpaying our babysitters by not paying "per child?"
Feel free to share your honest thoughts. (:
On to question #2: It was Parker's turn for a Mommy date a couple of weeks ago and we went to see Toy Story 3. Loved it. Jeremy later took all the kids to see it and he loved it too. My question is, are we the only parents who found ourselves totally crying at the end?
And question #3: Have you ever had a dinner of raspberries, blueberries, peaches and bananas cut up in a bowl with milk, sugar, and vanilla? If not, you are missing out! Mmmmmmm!