Connect with us

Business

This Gen Xer lives on a boat and supercommutes to California every few weeks for her $100/hour job

Published

on


For Josie Lauducci and her husband Christian, home isn’t tied to a zip code—it moves with the tides, literally.

For the past decade, the couple has lived aboard a 13-meter-long sailing yacht, traveling across the Pacific and at times raising their three children at sea. Their floating home has taken them from San Francisco to South America and as far as New Zealand.

They aren’t retired early or backed by generational wealth. Instead, their nomadic life is powered by something far more practical: Lauducci’s flexible nursing job in San Francisco. 

About every five or six weeks, Lauducci flies from wherever the boat is docked—most recently in Mexico—back to the Bay Area. She works eight 12-hour shifts as a per diem neonatal intensive care unit nurse, making over $100 an hour. While per diem roles don’t guarantee shifts, they offer far more control over scheduling—and in Lauducci’s case, enough pay to cover her family’s expenses.

“That rhythm is what makes this life possible,” the 44-year-old told Fortune from the airport, en route back to Luana, the family’s newest vessel.

The arrangement might sound extreme, but it’s increasingly familiar at hospitals across high-cost cities like San Francisco. In fact, there’s a growing class of workers who live far from where they’re employed, compress their schedules, and travel long distances to make the math work.

Lauducci is one of them: a supercommuter.

The rise of supercommuting

Lauducci has worked as a nurse for more than 20 years and started out full-time, with stints as a travel nurse along the way. But as she gained seniority at her Bay Area hospital, she began to notice a different path emerging, one taken by per diem nurses who traded predictability for flexibility.

Some would fly overseas after completing their required shifts. Others lived out of vans, exploring the U.S. between work stints. What they shared was a willingness to reorganize their lives around compressed schedules.

This idea of supercommuting has long existed across the corporate ladder, from interns to CEOs. But its popularity soared during the pandemic, when workers got a glimpse of a calmer, cheaper life outside major cities. 

Researchers from Stanford found that the share of workers in the 10 largest U.S. cities who commuted more than 75 miles each way had grown more than 32% since the pandemic. In the U.K., Trainline found that the number of Brits spending more than three hours getting to work and back has doubled since before COVID.

Work-life balance also now matters more than ever. A report released last month found that it has overtaken both pay and job security as the most important factor for job seekers. 

The healthcare system—under pressure to fill critical roles while reducing burnout—has thus increasingly made room for flexibility, particularly for experienced nurses whom hospitals are eager to retain. For Lauducci, that means if she miscalculates time to port and misses her flight, preventing her from working a shift, it’s not the end of the world.

“You can self-cancel (a shift) and they don’t cry about it,” Lauducci said.

Courtney El Refai is another example. She is also a nurse working in the Bay Area, but her home is some 5,000 miles away in Sweden. 

She stacks the four-shifts-a-month requirement together at the end of one month and the beginning of the next. So she spends about 10 days working eight shifts in California before heading back to Europe.

“The commute is absolutely outrageous, but imagine having six weeks off after working 10 days on a repeated pattern,” she said in a TikTok video that’s racked up over 500,000 views.

Moreover, since her husband and daughter made the move to Europe last year, she said she’s been enjoying an enhanced work-life balance.

“It basically feels like I am a stay-at-home mom, but I’m still a working mom…” El Refai said. “That is something no 9-to-5 job will ever give me.”

Life on the open waters

With the median sale price for a home in San Francisco being $1.48 million—241% higher than the national average—living almost anywhere else is going to be financially lower, including a sailboat. 

Lauducci said the low-consumption lifestyle was part of what drew her to her husband, who grew up sailing and once lived in a low-income artist co-op. Today, the couple is intentional about keeping costs down.

“We don’t spend much time in marinas, so when we anchor, it’s free. We sail, so we’re not using much energy. We create energy through solar power. We make our own water through a desalinator,” she said.

Josie Lauducci and her family once sailed from San Francisco to New Zealand, a trip that took over three years. (Photo courtesy of Josie Lauducci)

One of the most common criticisms she hears is about retirement. Lauducci understands the concern but rejects the idea that security must come from “the golden handcuffs of the pension.” She still contributes to a retirement account and worked long enough full-time to become vested.

While two of their three children have since grown older and moved on to college or careers, she said life at sea gave them a rare perspective.

“Your kids aren’t just out there by themselves,” she said. “You end up on the same sailing trajectory as other families, and you meet up at the beach, or you do potlucks on each other’s boats, and it’s just a real, instant community.”

And thanks to Starlink satellite internet, staying connected—when they want to be—is easier than ever, whether that means downloading a school project for their 12-year-old, checking the weather, or mapping out the route to their next adventure.





Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Down Arrow Button Icon

Published

on



A new Federal Reserve chair will be nominated soon to replace Jerome Powell, whose term ends in May. But the economy may prevent the central bank from lowering rates as much as President Donald Trump would like, according to Capital Economics.

In a note on Thursday, economists said the recent investment surge led by artificial intelligence is just the start of a multiyear boom in capital spending.

As a result, GDP with grow at a robust rate of 2.5% in both 2026 and 2027, even after accounting for a weaker job market that will slow consumption.

“With core inflation remaining above the 2% target for some considerable time, we think the Fed will cut its policy rate by only 25bp in 2026, putting the new Fed Chair and President Trump at loggerheads almost immediately,” Capital Economics predicted.

The president is considering National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett, Fed governor Christopher Waller, and former Fed governor Kevin Warsh. The prediction market Kalshi has Hassett as the favorite with 54% odds to be picked, followed by Warsh (24%) and Waller (14%).

On Wednesday, Trump said he will name someone “who believes in lower interest rates by a lot.” A week before that, after the Fed cut rates by a quarter point to 3.5%-3.75%, he complained that it could have been “at least doubled.”

And earlier this year, Trump suggested the rate should go all the way down to just 1%, a level that’s typically consist with a recession, not an economy expanding at a healthy clip.

To be sure, the job market is showing signs of stagnation, but the AI boom will keep the economy buoyant, with incomes holding up too, Capital Economics said.

That’s as business investment should grow by 6.5% in 2026 and accelerate to a 7.4% pace in 2027, as AI adoption spreads to more sectors outside tech, like finance, real estate and healthcare.

AI-fueled productivity gains should also help offset tightness in the labor market due to Trump immigration crackdown, but his tariffs will keep inflation sticky, economists said.

Of course, Trump’s Fed pick could do his bidding and push for more rate cuts, but that will require other policymakers to go along. And even if they do, the aggressive easing will eventually backfire.

“Admittedly, the appointment of a new Fed Chair could trigger a bigger wave of policy loosening, but only if the Trump administration is willing to destroy the FOMC’s independence and inflation-fighting credibility, which may result in higher long-term interest rates,” Capital Economics warned.

For his part, Hassett seemed to display a rare hint of independence from Trump last week, saying the president’s opinion would have “no weight” on the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee.

Not everyone is so bullish on the economy. Analysts at Citi Research expect GDP growth of around 2% next year with inflation heading toward the Fed’s 2% target and the labor market continuing to soften.

That will clear the war for the Fed to cut rates by a total of 75 basis points—triple what Capital Economics sees—to 2.75%-3.0%.

“Risks are balanced toward a more rapid rise in the unemployment rate that could lead the Fed to cut rates more rapidly and deeply,” Citi said in a note Thursday. “We do not expect a rebound in growth or labor demand in 2026. Instead, our base case is for hiring to remain subdued leading to slower income growth and a sustained slowdown in consumer spending.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

House Oversight Dem says a small fraction of Epstein files are out, and many were already public

Published

on



Not only did the Justice Department fail to provide all its files on the late sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, but the documents it did release represent just a fraction of what it has, according to the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

Soon after the department published the records, Rep. Robert Garcia told CNN “this is absolutely breaking the law.” That’s after an overwhelmingly bipartisan act of Congress last month required all the Epstein files to be disclosed by Friday.

“It could be that they that we’re only getting about 10% of what the DOJ has,” he added. “And of that 10%, 5% of that has already been released, and the other 5% is highly redacted. So we’re getting very little.”

Garcia said he’s also been in contact with Rep. Jamie Raskin, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, noting that they agree they will “likely have to take legal action if the Trump administration continues to stonewall.”

The Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. In early, overnight hours on Saturday, the DOJ released a few more batches of files that include some court documents, photos and memos.

Earlier, it said on X that it hasn’t redacted any names of politicians, pointing to comments from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“The only redactions being applied to the documents are those required by law — full stop,” he said. “Consistent with the statute and applicable laws, we are not redacting the names of individuals or politicians unless they are a victim.”

A spokesperson for Garcia didn’t immediately respond to a request for an update on the percentage of files that have been made public so far.

In addition to withholding files, the Justice Department also appeared to remove a photo with President Donald Trump that had been released on Friday.

That’s in contrast with White House officials highlighting photos of former President Bill Clinton that are in the document dump.

Meanwhile, the congressmen who led the effort to release the Epstein files have also warned of potential legal action due to the Justice Department’s continued failure to put out all the documents.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., pointed out that the Epstein Files Transparency Act directs DOJ to provide internal communications about their decisions, then shared a portion of a DOJ letter to Congress that asserts its privilege to omit those materials.

“THEY ARE FLAUNTING LAW,” he posted on X on Saturday.

In a separate post on Friday, Massie highlighted the criminal statute on obstruction of justice along with the Epstein Files Transparency Act’s language prohibiting the redaction of records on the basis of “embarrassment, repetitional harm, or political sensitivity.”

“A future DOJ could convict the current AG and others because the Epstein Files Transparency Act is not like a Congressional Subpoena which expires at the end of each Congress,” he warned.

Also on Friday, Rep. Ro Khanna said the Justice Department wasn’t complying with the spirit or the letter of the law.

The California Democrat added that he and Massie have already started working on drafting articles of impeachment and inherent contempt against Attorney General Pam Bondi, though they haven’t decided yet whether to move forward.

“Impeachment is a political decision and is there the support in the House of Representatives? I mean Massie and I aren’t going to just do something for the show of it,” Khanna told CNN.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

At least 16 Epstein files have disappeared from DOJ’s site less than a day after they were posted

Published

on



At least 16 files disappeared from the Justice Department’s public webpage for documents related to Jeffrey Epstein — including a photograph showing President Donald Trump — less than a day after they were posted, with no explanation from the government and no notice to the public.

The missing files, which were available Friday and no longer accessible by Saturday, included images of paintings depicting nude women, and one showing a series of photographs along a credenza and in drawers. In that image, inside a drawer among other photos, was a photograph of Trump, alongside Epstein, Melania Trump and Epstein’s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Justice Department did not say why the files were removed or whether their disappearance was intentional. A spokesperson for the department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Online, the unexplained missing files fueled speculation about what was taken down and why the public was not notified, compounding long-standing intrigue about Epstein and the powerful figures who surrounded him. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee pointed to the missing image featuring a Trump photo in a post on X, writing: “What else is being covered up? We need transparency for the American public.”

The episode deepened concerns that had already emerged from the Justice Department’s much-anticipated document release. The tens of thousands of pages made public offered little new insight into Epstein’s crimes or the prosecutorial decisions that allowed him to avoid serious federal charges for years, while omitting some of the most closely watched materials, including FBI interviews with victims and internal Justice Department memos on charging decisions.

Scant new insight in the initial disclosures

Some of the most consequential records expected about Epstein are nowhere to be found in the Justice Department’s initial disclosures, which span tens of thousands of pages.

Missing are FBI interviews with survivors and internal Justice Department memos examining charging decisions — records that could have helped explain how investigators viewed the case and why Epstein was allowed in 2008 to plead guilty to a relatively minor state-level prostitution charge.

The gaps go further.

The records, required to be released under a recent law passed by Congress, hardly reference several powerful figures long associated with Epstein, including Britain’s former Prince Andrew, renewing questions about who was scrutinized, who was not, and how much the disclosures truly advance public accountability

Among the fresh nuggets: insight into the Justice Department’s decision to abandon an investigation into Epstein in the 2000s, which enabled him to plead guilty to that state-level charge, and a previously unseen 1996 complaint accusing Epstein of stealing photographs of children.

The releases so far have been heavy on images of Epstein’s homes in New York City and the U.S. Virgin Islands, with some photos of celebrities and politicians.

There was a series of never-before-seen photos of former President Bill Clinton but fleetingly few of Trump. Both have been associated with Epstein, but both have since disowned those friendships. Neither has been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein and there was no indication the photos played a role in the criminal cases brought against him.

Despite a Friday deadline set by Congress to make everything public, the Justice Department said it plans to release records on a rolling basis. It blamed the delay on the time-consuming process of obscuring survivors’ names and other identifying information. The department has not given any notice when more records might arrive.

That approach angered some Epstein accusers and members of Congress who fought to pass the law forced the department to act. Instead of marking the end of a yearslong battle for transparency, the document release Friday was merely the beginning of an indefinite wait for a complete picture of Epstein’s crimes and the steps taken to investigate them.

“I feel like again the DOJ, the justice system is failing us,” said Marina Lacerda, who alleges Epstein started sexually abusing her at his New York City mansion when she was 14.

Many of the long-anticipated records were redacted or lacked context

Federal prosecutors in New York brought sex trafficking charges against Epstein in 2019, but he killed himself in jail after his arrest.

The documents just made public were a sliver of potentially millions of pages records in the department’s possession. In one example, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said Manhattan federal prosecutors had more than 3.6 million records from sex trafficking investigations into Epstein and Maxwell, though many duplicated material already turned over by the FBI.

Many of the records released so far had been made public in court filings, congressional releases or freedom of information requests, though, for the first time, they were all in one place and available for the public to search for free.

Ones that were new were often lacking necessary context or heavily blacked out. A 119-page document marked “Grand Jury-NY,” likely from one of the federal sex trafficking investigations that led to the charges against Epstein in 2019 or Maxwell in 2021, was entirely blacked out.

Trump’s Republican allies seized on the Clinton images, including photos of the Democrat with singers Michael Jackson and Diana Ross. There were also photos of Epstein with actors Chris Tucker and Kevin Spacey, and even Epstein with TV newscaster Walter Cronkite. But none of the photos had captions and was no explanation given for why any of them were together.

The meatiest records released so far showed that federal prosecutors had what appeared to be a strong case against Epstein in 2007 yet never charged him.

Transcripts of grand jury proceedings, released publicly for the first time, included testimony from FBI agents who described interviews they had with several girls and young women who described being paid to perform sex acts for Epstein. The youngest was 14 and in ninth grade.

One had told investigators about being sexually assaulted by Epstein when she initially resisted his advances during a massage.

Another, then 21, testified before the grand jury about how Epstein had hired her when she was 16 to perform a sexual massage and how she had gone on to recruit other girls to do the same.

“For every girl that I brought to the table he would give me $200,” she said. They were mostly people she knew from high school, she said. “I also told them that if they are under age, just lie about it and tell him that you are 18.”

The documents also contain a transcript of an interview Justice Department lawyers did more than a decade later with the U.S. attorney who oversaw the case, Alexander Acosta, about his ultimate decision not to bring federal charges.

Acosta, who was labor secretary during Trump’s first term, cited concerns about whether a jury would believe Epstein’s accusers.

He also said the Justice Department might have been more reluctant to make a federal prosecution out of a case that straddled the legal border between sex trafficking and soliciting prostitution, something more commonly handled by state prosecutors.

“I’m not saying it was the right view,” Acosta added. He also said that the public today would likely view the survivors differently.

“There’s been a lot of changes in victim shaming,” Acosta said.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.