Hey there,

Lately, I’ve been thinking a lot about my time in Latin America and the impact, positive or negative, that we gringos have here. Many foreigners move to cities and skip Spanish lessons. They pay rent in dollars and push up prices for locals. They expect the city to adjust to them. That works for a while, but then it stops. Locals notice when people take from a place without giving back. Sooner or later, there’s a price to pay.

I’ve been here long enough to see both sides. Early on, I had to ask myself: am I just taking advantage of a good market, or am I building something that gives back?

That question is a big part of why I started Lupa. I wanted to connect US companies with Latin American talent in a way that really works. When companies treat hiring here as just a way to save money rather than a real commitment, they usually fail within a year. They blame the region, leave, and leave the people they hired in a tough spot. That hurts everyone: the company, the hires, and the market.

The goal was always simple: help companies succeed in Latin America so they want to return, and place candidates in jobs where they can really grow. When both sides win, everything works.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. The Hiring Market Looks Active. It Isn’t.

Recap: New analysis from Indeed Hiring Lab, published April 13, shows a widening gap between job postings and completed hires in the US. Job postings have climbed steadily, but the actual hiring rate has fallen from 4.5% in 2021 to 2.8% today. Supporting data from BambooHR’s 2026 State of Hiring report shows applicants per posting have nearly doubled, from roughly 46 to 95 over the same period. Worker productivity rose 4.9% last year, one of the sharpest increases on record. At a late-2025 CEO summit, two-thirds of top executives said they plan to keep headcount flat or reduce it, citing trade policy uncertainty, elevated interest rates, and AI.

The US labor market isn’t falling apart. It’s just stuck, and that difference matters to founders trying to hire right now.

Here’s what’s really happening: companies post jobs to keep their pipelines full and look stable, but they aren’t making offers like they used to. Productivity gains that should mean more hiring are instead used as reasons to keep team sizes the same. Teams that once needed eight people now do the same work with six, and leaders are fine with that. So jobs stay open, applications pile up, and nothing gets filled.

This sets a trap for founders. The market looks competitive because there are so many applicants, but the people you really want are mostly still employed and not moving. Quit rates are near record lows. The best candidates aren’t actively looking. They feel secure enough to wait, especially since tariffs and AI make changing jobs riskier than it was two years ago.

This caution makes the freeze worse. Employers aren’t investing in their teams as much as the headlines suggest, and top candidates aren’t taking big risks. The whole market is waiting for things to settle.

Advice:

If you have an important opening, treat it like a real competition, even if you get lots of applicants. High volume doesn’t mean high quality. The people you want need a strong reason to move, and right now, that bar is higher than it’s been in years.

2. Meta and Microsoft Cut 23,000 Jobs and Blamed AI. That Is Not the Whole Story.

Recap: On April 23 and 24, Meta and Microsoft announced cuts affecting a combined 23,000 employees within a 24-hour window. Meta plans to eliminate 8,000 roles starting May 20, concentrated in its Trust and Safety division, where AI moderation tools have reportedly surpassed human reviewer accuracy across most content categories. Microsoft announced buyouts to approximately 8,750 US employees. Both companies explicitly cited AI-driven efficiency gains as the primary driver. The announcements came the same week that Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft confirmed plans to spend nearly $700 billion combined on AI infrastructure in 2026.

Both companies do have real business reasons for these cuts. AI moderation tools really are replacing some content review jobs. That part is true.

What deserves more scrutiny is the framing. A December 2025 survey found that 59% of hiring managers admitted they emphasize AI when announcing layoffs because it plays better with stakeholders than acknowledging overhiring or margin pressure. “AI did it” quickly closes the conversation. It sounds like an inevitable force of nature rather than a deliberate set of choices made over several years. It shifts accountability away from the decisions that led to the overcorrection in the first place.

This matters for founders paying attention to these headlines and trying to decide what to do next. The idea that AI is wiping out whole business functions is only partly true—and it’s also helpful for those who want that story to be believed. The same companies cutting jobs are spending more than ever on AI infrastructure. That’s a choice about where to put their money, not proof that the labor market is falling apart.

A better signal is what these companies are hiring for now: AI integration roles, technical customer success, forward-deployed engineers, and enterprise AI support teams. For every job lost to automation, another is growing to manage, deploy, or sell it. The shift is real and uneven, but it’s not a total elimination.

Advice:

Don’t let Big Tech’s reasons for restructuring shape your hiring plans. Most of what they’re doing is correcting for too much hiring between 2020 and 2022. Founders who build teams that fit their real needs and train people on AI tools now will be in a much better spot than those who use AI uncertainty as an excuse to stop hiring.

3. Argentina Got a $1 Billion Vote of Confidence from the IMF.

Recap: On April 15, the IMF cleared Argentina’s second program review, unlocking a $1 billion disbursement and endorsing a package of structural reforms. The package includes labor market flexibility legislation, the restoration of companies’ ability to repatriate profits, and the formal dismantling of capital controls that had been in place since 2019. The IMF projects Argentina will grow 3.5% in 2026, the strongest growth forecast among the region’s major economies. However, March 2026 came in at 3.4% monthly inflation, bringing Q1 cumulative inflation to 9.4%. The government had budgeted 10.1% for the entire calendar year.

Argentina is really recovering. The big picture—FDI coming back, capital controls gone, and the IMF program on track—shows real structural change. For companies that had given up on the country, there’s now a strong case to take another look, backed by real institutional support.

The inflation numbers add important context. The government planned for 10.1% inflation for all of 2026, but they’ve already hit 9.4% in just three months. This doesn’t mean stabilization is failing; it just means costs are rising faster than expected. Companies hiring in Argentina now need to update their view that it’s a very low-cost market. Senior professionals know their buying power is shrinking and are pricing their work to match. The best candidates have been quoted in USD for a while, and that’s not changing.

This creates a more complex opportunity, not a simple one. Argentina’s talent—across engineering, product, finance, and legal—is still very strong, thanks to top universities and a long history of technical skill. That hasn’t changed. What has changed is pay and how candidates think. The best people aren’t hugely undervalued anymore, and many now look for jobs paid in dollars because they know how inflation affects peso salaries. That’s still a real advantage for US companies hiring there, but it takes better preparation and stronger offers than before.

Advice:

If you plan to hire in Argentina in 2026, use up-to-date numbers. The big picture is getting better, but costs are rising, and top candidates expect more. Companies that come in with real pay benchmarks and a clear commitment to the market will build much better teams than those still using 2023 assumptions.

That’s it for this week.

All three stories come back to the same question: are you really building something, or just looking for an easy advantage?

A frozen labor market rewards companies that put in the effort to find and win over the right candidate, rather than just waiting for many applicants. AI layoff stories deserve a closer look—founders who ask, “Who benefits from this story?” will make better choices than those who just accept it. In Argentina, companies that come prepared and make real offers do better than those who expect the market to adjust to them.

One way to hire in Latin America is to take value and leave. Another way is to build something lasting and return. The second way is harder, but it’s the only one that matters. If you want to talk about what that could look like for your team, reach out to us at lupahire.com.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Hey there,

This week, I was named to Atlas and Hoxo’s Top 100 Recruitment Leaders in North America. Honestly, I had no idea I was on their radar.

A year ago, I made a commitment to post on LinkedIn every day. I stuck with it, knowing that consistency mattered—not just for the algorithm, but because you only get better by putting your work out there. Even after 11 million impressions, I never expected this outcome.

I also learned how important it is to listen. The comments, direct messages, and even the pushback all help. That feedback makes the content better over time.

But honestly, the real reason any of this works is simple. I do not focus on myself. I write about Latin America—its talent, history, culture, and the amazing talent markets that many US founders miss. That focus is why I started Lupa. When content is based on real experiences, people notice.

Grateful to represent Latin America recruiting on the leaderboard. And to everyone who reads, comments, and shares, you are the reason this platform means anything. This is just the beginning.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. The March Jobs Report Just Threw Everyone’s Predictions Out the Window

Recap: The US economy added 178,000 jobs in March 2026, far exceeding the Dow Jones consensus estimate of 59,000. The gain follows February’s revised loss of 133,000 jobs. Unemployment held at 4.3%. Health care, construction, and transportation led the gains. Federal government employment continued to decline, with the government now down roughly 355,000 employees since early 2025. Meanwhile, labor force participation slipped, and long-term unemployment remained elevated.

The headline number looks great—three times the forecast and the biggest monthly gain since Trump’s second term began. But if you are actually hiring, the details in the report matter more and tell a more complex story.

Right now, the labor market is best described as ‘low-hire, low-fire.’ Most people are not being laid off, except in the federal workforce, but they are not changing jobs either. Quit rates are at historic lows because workers feel it is risky to switch. While this looks good for retention, it actually means the pool of candidates for open roles is smaller and less active than it appears.

The sectors adding jobs show where demand is strongest. Health care continues to grow, corresponding with demographic trends. Construction is up because of infrastructure projects across the country. The shrinking federal workforce is sending experienced people into the private sector. If you are hiring for operations, compliance, or program management, this is a talent pool worth considering.

Overall, this is not a boom or a bust. The best candidates have choices and are prudent about making moves. If you want to hire top talent now, you need to act quickly and make stronger offers than you did last year.

Advice:

Do not assume the market is opening up just because of the 178,000 jobs number. The people you want are already employed and comfortable. Your offer has to be strong enough to make them consider leaving their current job.

2. 67% of Workers Say Their Employer Is Failing on AI Training

Recap: New research from SHRM and Gloat found that 67% of US workers disagree that their employer has acted proactively in training them to work alongside AI. Only 17% report that their company is doing anything meaningful to upskill workers in AI-impacted roles. Meanwhile, 51% of workers say they want more AI training. Separately, 80% of HR leaders now use AI for functions like researching employment laws and summarizing reports, but only one in ten has fully automated any HR function.

The reskilling gap is turning into one of the year’s biggest hiring stories. It is not a new problem, but it is getting worse just as AI adoption speeds up.

It is simple: companies are rolling out AI tools faster than they are training employees to use them. This creates a two-speed workforce—a small group of ‘power users’ who learn on their own, and a much larger group that falls behind. As Anthropic’s head of economics said at the Axios AI Summit last month, there is no big difference in unemployment figures between AI-exposed and non-exposed jobs yet. But the skills gap within those jobs is growing quickly.

This has a direct impact on hiring. If you are a founder or operator building an AI-ready team, you have two choices. You can hire people who already have these qualifications and compete with everyone else, or you can hire strong candidates and train them. Right now, 67% of workers say their employer is not investing in training. That is your chance.

The EU AI Act is also worth mentioning here. By August 2, 2026, any company using AI to screen, rank, or evaluate job candidates in the EU must comply with documentation, bias audit, and human review requirements. If you use AI in your hiring process and have any European exposure, that deadline is four months away.

Advice:

Companies that train their teams on AI now will have an advantage in hiring and keeping talent over the next two years. Those who wait will be fighting for the same small group of self-taught people. Build these skills inside your company—it is cheaper, faster, and helps build loyalty.

3. Foxconn Bet $900 Million That Mexico Is the Future of AI Hardware

Recap: Foxconn is building a massive AI server assembly facility in Jalisco, Mexico, with an investment of approximately $900 million. The plant will produce NVIDIA GB200 NVL72 servers, primarily for OpenAI’s $500 billion Stargate project. NVIDIA’s sales in Mexico grew 300% over the past year, and the company has added 45 new corporate partners in the country since late 2024. Foxconn recently invested an additional $136 million to expand capacity and was not slowed by tariff uncertainty.

While the US discusses tariff refunds and return-to-office rules, Foxconn is busy building the world’s largest assembly operation for advanced AI servers—in Mexico.

The Jalisco plant will make NVIDIA’s GB200 servers, which power the Stargate project. Foxconn did not pause when tariffs were announced. The company grew its server business in Mexico during Trump’s first term and is investing even more now. When asked about tariff risks, several manufacturers gave the same answer: they are staying.

It is not exclusively about cost. Geography, mature supply chains, and a growing talent pipeline all play a role. NVIDIA is working with UNAM and Tec de Monterrey. There are now 1,100 AI startups in Latin America using NVIDIA’s platforms. Mexico City has the region’s largest tech talent pool, with 300,000 professionals.

If you think of Latin America only as a nearshoring option, it is time to broaden your view. The region is not simply a place to hire software engineers—it is where some of the world’s most advanced hardware is being built for the biggest AI project ever announced. The talent pool and infrastructure are growing side by side.

Advice:

Latin America’s value is rising fast. If you have considered the region for engineering or operations hires, now is the time to move. The companies investing $900 million are not making guesses—they have already run the numbers.

That’s it for this week.

Three stories, one theme: the labor market is not broken, it is changing. New jobs are appearing, but they need new skills. Companies are putting millions into new regions, but talent pipelines are still developing. The gap between companies that adapt and those that wait is growing every quarter.

The best thing you can do now is simple: hire well, train your team, and build where the fundamentals are going. That is exactly what we help companies do at lupahire.com.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Hey there,

Happy April Fools’ Day. I almost started with a fake headline, like “Lupa raises $500M Series A” or “Every tech company agrees to stop calling layoffs ‘organizational realignments.’” Honestly, though, this week’s real headlines are already unbelievable.

Oracle laid off up to 30,000 people yesterday morning via a 6am email. Meanwhile, LinkedIn data shows AI has created 1.3 million new jobs in two years. And the trade agreement that makes cross-border hiring in North America possible is up for its first formal review this summer.

The real news is more interesting than anything fake. Instead of “AI is destroying everything,” the real story this quarter is that the labor market is changing quickly, and companies that adapt will come out ahead.

At Lupa, we spent the week doing what we always do: pairing the right person to the right role. That stays the same, no matter how surprising the headlines are.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Oracle Fires 30,000 People With a 6am Email

Recap: On Tuesday, March 31, Oracle began what analysts believe could be the largest layoff in company history. Employees across the US, India, Canada, and Mexico received termination emails from “Oracle Leadership” at approximately 6am local time with no prior warning. Investment bank TD Cowen estimates the cuts will affect 20,000 to 30,000 employees, roughly 18% of Oracle’s global workforce. Access to company systems was cut immediately.

The numbers are big. Oracle announced a $2.1 billion restructuring plan in its SEC filing. TD Cowen says the layoffs will free up $8 to $10 billion in cash flow, which will go straight into AI data center infrastructure. Oracle’s net income jumped 95% last quarter, and it has $523 billion in remaining performance obligations. Financially, this firm stays stable.

However, what people will remember is how it was done. No phone call, no meeting, no talk with a manager. Just a 6am email and a locked laptop. Employees on Reddit said some teams lost at least 30% of their members, and some people found out they were let go only when they lost access before even reading the message.

There are business reasons to restructure when investing. Companies change direction and strategies regularly. That’s normal. However, treating the process like a logistics task—where 30,000 people learn about their jobs from an automated email before sunrise—is not. How you handle a transition shows your remaining employees, your customers, and the market who you really are.

Oracle will likely be fine financially. The $156 billion infrastructure build is a real strategy for real demand. However, the knowledge those 30,000 people had doesn’t move to a data center. And the trust of the employees who are still there just took a hit that no all-hands meeting can repair.

Advice:

If you ever need to make cuts while building a company, plan how you’ll communicate it before you plan how much you’ll save. How you deliver the news matters more than the memo itself.

2. AI Has Quietly Created 1.3 Million New Jobs

Recap: A LinkedIn report published in partnership with the World Economic Forum found that AI has created more than 1.3 million new jobs globally in just 2 years, including roles such as AI Engineer, Forward-Deployed Engineer, and Data Annotator that barely existed before 2023. The WEF projects 170 million new roles by 2030, with a net gain of 78 million jobs after accounting for 92 million displaced. LinkedIn also reported a 34% year-over-year increase in AI/ML job postings, even as overall tech postings declined 8%.

This is the story that deserves more attention. It not only contradicts the layoff headlines but also further adds important context to them.

The labor market isn’t falling apart—it’s shifting. Global hiring is still about 20% below pre-pandemic figures. Nevertheless, LinkedIn’s data shows the slowdown is mostly due to economic insecurity and post-pandemic adjustments, not AI taking over. Except for a few roles, jobs with high and low AI exposure are being filled at about the same rate.

What’s changing is the mix of jobs. AI Engineer is now LinkedIn’s fastest-growing job title, up 143% from last year. The typical hire has 3.7 years of experience, so it’s not just for senior executives. Mid-career professionals with the right skills can get these roles. Plus, 52% of professionals worldwide say they’re actively job hunting in 2026. The talent and demand are both there—the match just looks different than it did two years ago.

The WEF gave a number worth remembering: a net gain of 78 million jobs by 2030. The transition won’t be easy; nevertheless, the opportunity is real for people and companies set to adapt.

Advice:

If you’re hiring, don’t look for the same profiles you hired in 2023. The roles are changing. If you’re job hunting, AI skills aren’t just a bonus anymore—they’re becoming standard. LinkedIn data shows that workers are now more than twice as likely to add AI skills to their profiles than they were six years ago. Take note and follow their example.

3. The USMCA Review Is Coming. North American Hiring Hangs in the Balance.

Recap: In July 2026, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will begin the first formal review of the USMCA trade agreement. Under Article 34.7, the three countries can extend the agreement for 16 years, initiate annual reviews, or begin a termination process. The review is expected to cover rules of origin, labor standards, nearshoring incentives, and broader issues, including migration and drug policy.

This story isn’t getting enough attention, but it matters more than most of the stories covered today.

The USMCA governs a $1.93 trillion trade corridor across three countries and 500 million people. The July review will determine whether the agreement gets extended to 2042, creating 16 years of regulatory predictability, or enters a period of annual reviews that could freeze cross-border investment decisions for a decade.

If you’re building distributed teams with talent from Latin America, this isn’t just background noise. Mexico brought in $40.9 billion in foreign direct investment in the first three quarters of 2025, up 14.5% from the year before. New investments jumped 218%. That growth is closely linked to the stability the USMCA brings. If the review goes well, it keeps the conditions that make nearshoring possible. Otherwise, the uncertainty might slow things down for years.

There’s some real irony here. In the same week a US tech company lays off 30,000 people to invest in AI, the trade rules that let companies hire skilled engineers in Latin America are being reviewed. Companies building strong teams now are watching both issues. While layoff headlines get attention, the trade review will shape what happens next.

Advice:

If you’re hiring or planning to hire in Latin America, mark July 2026 on your calendar. The results will affect everything from compliance costs to how fast you can grow a cross-border team. Don’t wait for the news to catch up.

That’s it for this week.

I began by saying the real headlines are stranger than any April Fools’ joke. There’s a bigger point: the labor market is changing shape. Jobs are being created as others are cut. Money is moving. Trade agreements are under review. Everything is shifting.

Successful companies won’t panic or ignore change. Instead, they’ll act thoughtfully, hire the right people, treat them well, and build teams they want to keep.

If you’re wondering what that could look like for your company, we’re always willing to chat at lupahire.com.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Hey there,

This week, I keep wondering: Who actually benefits from the constant narrative that AI is taking everyone’s jobs in business media?

Think about it. Every CEO who blames AI when announcing layoffs gets a stock bump and avoids tougher conversations about overhiring or margin pressure. AI companies that stay in the “disruption” headlines benefit from the sense that change is inevitable. If everyone believes the transition can’t be stopped, the question shifts from whether to buy the tools to which ones to buy. Boards that want to freeze hiring now have an easy justification that sounds strategic instead of reactive.

That doesn’t mean AI displacement isn’t real. It is. Some jobs are being automated, entry-level hiring is slowing, and disruption is speeding up in certain areas. But “certain areas” is an important detail, and the main story doesn’t leave much room for specifics. Panic makes a better headline than nuance.

So this week I looked for the real numbers. Here are three stories, and none of them is about layoffs.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. OpenAI Is Nearly Doubling Its Headcount

Recap: The Financial Times reported this week that OpenAI plans to grow its workforce from about 4,500 to around 8,000 employees by the end of 2026. The hiring covers product, engineering, research, enterprise sales, and a new role called “technical ambassadorship.” This function is meant to help large organizations actually use AI tools in their businesses. OpenAI is also expanding office space in several markets. The company is shifting from being mainly a research lab to a full-scale enterprise software company, now competing for the same B2B contracts as Salesforce, Microsoft, and Oracle.

The company most frequently associated with replacing jobs is now leading one of the biggest hiring waves in tech. That’s worth thinking about.

OpenAI’s growth shows where AI is in its business journey. Building models is just one part. Selling them to companies, integrating them into workflows, providing technical support, and renewing contracts all require different kinds of teams.

The “technical ambassadorship” category is the most interesting signal. It describes people who sit between the product and the customer — fluent enough in the technology to demo and troubleshoot, skilled enough in business to understand what the client actually needs and why adoption isn’t happening. This is a role that didn’t exist five years ago. It is in demand now because the gap between “AI can do this” and “your team is actually using AI to do this” is enormous, and closing it requires humans.

The bigger picture is that for every company cutting jobs because of AI, there are other companies—AI vendors, their partners, and the enterprise software teams built around these tools—that are hiring. These jobs are different from the ones being cut. They usually need more experience, technical skills, and strong communication. But these jobs do exist.

Advice:

If you’re hiring in enterprise software, AI infrastructure, or roles connecting technical products with business buyers, clarify what makes your job compelling and move quickly. Streamline your hiring process to remain competitive with OpenAI for top candidates.

2. Brazil Is Leading the Americas in Tech Hiring Confidence

Recap: ManpowerGroup’s Q2 2026 Tech Talent Outlook, released March 19, found that US employers reported a Net Employment Outlook of 41% for tech hiring — an 8-point increase from the prior quarter. Globally, tech hiring intent reached 45%, up 9 points year over year. Within the Americas, Brazil led at 63%, followed by Panama at 61% and Canada at 45%. India led globally at 69%. Colombia came in at 13%, reflecting more cautious employer sentiment. The survey was conducted from January 1 to February 3, before the outbreak of conflict in the Middle East.

This story isn’t getting much attention because layoff headlines are louder and easier to write.

An eight-point jump in one quarter is a real change in the US. It doesn’t mean tech hiring is back to 2021 levels—it’s not. But it shows that employers who are ready to grow are starting to hire. The jobs they’re filling are different now: more senior, more specialized, and more focused on AI. There are fewer open roles overall, but the ones that do open are filled more intentionally.

Brazil’s 63% is the number to watch. This isn’t a market under pressure—it’s growing. The local fintech and e-commerce scene, with Nubank reaching 131 million customers and Mercado Libre seeing 45% revenue growth, is creating strong demand for senior engineering, product, and data talent. Now, US companies hiring remotely are competing for the same people, which is pushing up pay for top candidates and making hiring harder than it was a year ago.

Colombia’s 13% tells a different story. It’s not about poor talent—the country has great professionals in tech, finance, and operations. Instead, it shows that local employers are cautious during a presidential transition year. For companies willing to put in the effort, such hesitation creates an opportunity: the best candidates are often more available and open to new roles when local demand is low.

Advice:

If hiring technical talent in Latin America for Q2 or Q3, expect tough competition in Brazil. Start searches earlier and highlight unique role benefits. In Colombia and other cautious markets, consider targeting roles that don’t require top-tier Brazilian expertise to ensure a smoother hiring process.

3. Stanford Economists Checked What AI Is Actually Doing to Jobs

Recap: At the 2026 Stanford SIEPR Economic Summit, a panel of economists—including Erika McEntarfer, former head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics—shared early findings on AI’s impact on hiring. Entry-level software developer hiring for ages 22–26 is down 20%. Call center hiring is down 15%. These are real declines, not just predictions. Still, the panel found no sign of a broad labor market collapse: unemployment for workers exposed to AI hasn’t gone up much, the overall job market is steady, and jobs with low AI exposure—like home health aides, skilled trades, and manual labor—are still growing. The researchers also noted a shift in professional fields like law, banking, and medicine, moving from pyramid-shaped hiring (many junior roles, fewer senior ones) to something more like a diamond or inverted shape.

The headline says “AI is eliminating jobs.” The more accurate story is that AI is cutting out the lowest level of certain knowledge jobs, but the middle and senior roles are mostly staying the same.

A 20% drop in entry-level software developer hiring doesn’t mean all software developers are being replaced. It means junior developers who used to write boilerplate, fix simple bugs, and handle documentation aren’t being hired because AI tools can do that work well enough. Senior developers who design systems and make key decisions are still being hired, often at higher pay. The same pattern is happening in law, finance, and operations.

The shift from a pyramid to a diamond shape in hiring is the most important finding. Junior roles serve two purposes: handling work that doesn’t need senior judgment, and developing future senior professionals. If AI takes over the first job, it becomes harder to do the second. Companies cutting entry-level jobs now are creating a talent pipeline problem that will show up in two or three years—and will be costly to fix.

For Latin American professionals, this data makes things clearer. The biggest interference is in entry-level, highly standardized technical jobs based in the US. The roles that are stable—or even growing—are the ones international hiring usually fills: experienced professionals with specific skills who can work independently and make good decisions. The talent pool I work with is mostly mid-to-senior level. That’s not by accident. It’s why demand has stayed strong.

Advice:

If you’ve cut or frozen entry-level jobs for AI efficiency, ensure you are still developing talent and mentoring staff. Don’t just automate tasks—actively build career growth programs or risk future skill gaps.

That’s it for this week.

Three different data points, but the same pattern: disruption is real and focused, and growth is also real and focused. The space between those two is where a smart hiring strategy happens right now. That’s what I help clients with. If you want to talk about it for your team, you can find me at lupahire.com or just reply here.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

Venezuela made baseball history last night, beating Team USA 3-2 in the World Baseball Classic final. I was rooting for Team USA, but watching Venezuela celebrate their win at loanDepot Park, I was struck by the moment.

This team knocked out Japan, the defending champions, used their entire bullpen the night before against Italy, and still came back to win. When Bryce Harper tied it in the eighth, the Venezuelan players didn’t panic. In the ninth, Eugenio Suárez drove in the go-ahead run, and they held on.

Nobody believed in Venezuela, Suárez said after the last out. But now we win the championship.

I spent part of the evening talking to Venezuelan colleagues and friends. They were all feeling the same thing, and it was hard to put into words — something like relief mixed with joy. For people who’ve had to build their careers and their lives far from home, in conditions most people never have to think about, there aren’t many moments of pure celebration without a shadow of something else attached. Last night was one of them. Venezuela declared today a national holiday.

The grit that the team showed on the field is something I see in Venezuelan professionals every single day. They adapt. They persist. They find a way. And last night, in front of the whole country watching from wherever they are in the world, they got to celebrate it openly.

Congratulations to Venezuela. You earned this.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Meta Is Planning to Cut Up to 16,000 Employees — and the Market Rewarded It Immediately

Recap: Reuters reported on March 13 that Meta plans to lay off about 16,000 employees, more than 20% of its workforce. The cuts offset Meta’s plan to double its AI spending to $135 billion in 2026, mostly for data centers, GPUs, and custom chips. Senior leaders are being told to prepare for smaller teams. Despite Meta calling the reports speculative, the stock still climbed nearly 3% on the news.

The stock reaction is the story worth paying attention to.

Meta’s share price went up when the layoffs leaked. The same thing happened with Block in February. Markets now reward companies that announce workforce cuts for AI, and boards see the signal. When cutting people produces a 3% share price pop, the incentive is obvious.

Meta is cutting jobs to fund its $135 billion AI infrastructure commitment this year, not because AI has replaced workers. Payroll is the fastest source of cash. We saw the same with Oracle two weeks ago: a big bet on AI, headcount as the shock absorber.

This is a different story from “AI replaced these jobs.” But it gets filed under the same headline, and that conflation is doing real damage to how people understand what’s actually happening. For leaders building teams right now, the practical upside is real: the professionals being displaced from Meta, Oracle, and Block are talented, motivated, and available. If you’ve been trying to hire senior people and couldn’t attract the caliber you needed, the next 60 to 90 days may be the best window you’ll have in some time.

Advice:

Don’t take every AI layoff announcement at face value. Ask whether the company is cutting because AI changed the work, or because they need cash to fund their AI bet. The first has strategic implications for your own hiring decisions. The second is just about capital allocation.

2. Atlassian Cut 1,600 Jobs and Was Unusually Honest About Why

Recap: On March 11, Atlassian announced it was cutting 10% of its global workforce, about 1,600 employees, to self-fund investments in AI and enterprise sales. CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes was direct: AI changes the mix of skills needed and roles in some areas. Over 900 of the cuts were in software R&D. The company reported strong cloud revenue growth, and its Rovo AI product passed 5 million users. Atlassian made the move from a position of strength, not crisis. The stock rose 2%.

What stands out about Atlassian is the candor.

Cannon-Brookes didn’t sugarcoat it. The skills the company needs have changed, the bar has moved, and they’re choosing to adapt now on their own terms instead of being forced into it later. Most CEOs won’t say that publicly.

More than 900 of the 1,600 cuts were in software R&D. With AI-assisted tools replacing this work, Atlassian now needs fewer people to build the tools software teams use. This is what transition looks like in 2026 from inside a software company.

Cannon-Brookes’ version: we’re in a good position, the nature of the work is changing faster than we are, and we’d rather decide deliberately than react. It’s a defensible but uncomfortable position. Most companies reach for vaguer language.

Advice:

Read the Atlassian memo. It’s one of the clearest public explanations of how a software company thinks through an AI-driven restructure from a position of momentum. Companies will soon talk about “reshaping the skill mix” instead of “replacing people with AI.” Learn the language now to ask better questions about it later.

3. Nubank Just Reported 131 Million Customers and Profits Up 62% — Latin America’s Digital Economy Is Growing on Its Own Terms

Recap: Nubank reported Q4 2025 net income of $894.8 million, up 62% year-over-year. Revenue rose 45% to $4.86 billion. The customer base grew 15% to 131 million across Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia. That makes Nubank the largest private financial institution by customers in Brazil and the top issuer of new credit cards in Mexico. The company is now aiming for a US launch after OCC approval. Mercado Libre, meanwhile, reported revenue up 45%, $19.9 billion in Gross Merchandise Volume, and its Mercado Pago fintech unit serves 78 million monthly active users. Both companies are rapidly adopting AI.

While US tech companies cut headcount to fund AI, Latin America’s digital economy is still early and growing fast.

Nubank serves roughly 15% of Mexico’s adult population and is the largest private bank by customers in Brazil. They built their base by making financial services accessible to people excluded by traditional banks, and their cost structure keeps them ahead. The 62% profit growth shows the model is scaled, not just bigger.

Mercado Libre’s numbers tell a similar story. 45% revenue growth, when US e-commerce is at 7–9%, shows what happens when a platform is still digitizing a whole region. The logistics-fintech flywheel is compounding: cheaper shipping drives more buying, and more payment data enables better credit. That’s a different business story than anything in US tech this week.

Nubank and Mercado Libre are scaling aggressively and hiring for it. Nubank is building its US presence. Mercado Libre is investing in fulfillment and enterprise AI across Latin America. They’re competing for senior talent, sometimes directly with US firms.

Advice:

If you work with or invest in LatAm, Nubank and Mercado Libre set the baseline for sustainable growth in the region. Companies focused on financial inclusion, digital payments, and logistics aren’t following the US tech playbook. Get clear on what makes them different before you try to benchmark them.

That’s it for this week.

Venezuela won by doing exactly what people said they couldn’t. They stayed composed when it mattered, responded under pressure, and finished what they started. That’s how I think about building teams right now. It’s about building with intention, knowing what you’re building, why it matters, and who you need to do it, not chasing a narrative with cuts and restructures.

That’s the work I do every day at Lupa. If you want to talk, you know where to find me: lupahire.com or just reply here.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

I’m just coming back from my golf practice. I spent most of the winter working on my golf swing.

I’m about a 2 handicap. On a good day, I can shoot par, which is better than most amateurs but still far from pro level. Last year was my best year yet. Even so, I came back in January and started over from scratch.

I focused on where my hands are during the takeaway. It sounds minor, but getting it right means relearning the whole movement. There’s a comfortable way to do it, which is an easy improvement but only brings a small gain. The harder way feels wrong for months, but eventually leads to something bigger.

I keep thinking about that at work. Lupa is at about $2M in revenue. To get to $20M, I need to change focus completely: how I lead, what I hand off, what I stop doing myself. None of it is comfortable. All of it is necessary.

When hiring, I keep asking clients: Are these roles right for where you’re going, or just leftovers from when you were smaller? Most founders inherit job descriptions from earlier versions of their company. It’s easier to keep filling those roles than to stop and ask if they still fit.

There was a lot of news this week, but only a few stories actually mattered.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Anthropic publishes real data on which jobs AI is displacing; the most important finding is buried beneath the headlines.

Recap: On March 5, Anthropic released a labor market paper with a new metric: observed exposure. It tracks what AI could do versus what people actually use it for at work. The most exposed jobs by real usage data are computer programmers, customer service reps, and data entry keyers. Financial analysts and market research specialists follow. The least exposed—cooks, lifeguards, dishwashers, bartenders—make up about 30% of the workforce. Those in the most exposed roles are more likely to be female, older, more educated, and higher paid. Despite fears, there hasn’t been a systematic rise in unemployment for high-exposure jobs since ChatGPT launched. But there’s a telling signal: entry-level hiring for younger workers in exposed fields has dropped 14% since late 2022.

Commentary on the report is missing the real gap: not between safe and exposed jobs, but between what AI can do and what it’s actually doing. For example, computer and math jobs have 94% theoretical exposure, but only 33% actual coverage. Office and admin jobs are 90% theoretical, 25% actual. Legal is 80% theoretical, 15% actual.

That gap isn’t a comfort. It’s a countdown, showing where displacement is heading and how much runway is left. Anthropic’s framing is cautious: effects so far are modest, but the mechanism is now in place and the trajectory is clear.

The drop in entry-level hiring for younger workers is the clearest signal. There is no mass unemployment yet, but a 14% drop is how disruption begins: quietly, at the edges, before it appears in the data. Companies aren’t firing people. They’re just not replacing them or hiring new graduates to fill the pipeline.

This explains why the international hiring market looks different right now. In Latin America, demand is up for roles needing high judgment and direct client contact—the kinds of things AI can’t handle yet. Task-based roles are slowing, matching Anthropic’s data almost perfectly.

What matters here is that Anthropic, the company behind Claude, isn’t a neutral observer. Publishing data that implicates their own product in labor market disruption is meaningful, and deserves credit.

Advice:

Read the report itself. The chart showing theoretical versus observed exposure by job category is the best way to see where things are going. If much of your team’s work is in the “blue zone,” meaning what AI could do but isn’t doing yet, that’s your planning horizon.

2. Latin America’s startup funding just had its strongest year since 2022, but fewer companies benefited.

Recap: The Latin America VC Report 2026 found venture capital investment hit $4.1 billion in 2025—a 13.8% rise over 2024, marking the first real recovery after three years of decline from the 2021 peak. Still, the number of deals dropped to 681, the lowest since 2017. Average check size grew to $6.1 million. Brazil and Mexico took most of the capital. Fintech dominated funding, but late-stage rounds shrank sharply, and seed deals fell from 321 to 247.

The important number isn’t the $4.1 billion; it’s how few deals actually happened.

More capital is going to fewer companies, raising the bar for getting funded. Investors write bigger checks only for those who have already executed. The speculative bets of 2021 are gone. Now, a smaller set of investors are concentrating capital on proven founders in established markets. Brazil and Mexico took most of it. Fintech still led. Seed-stage startups across the rest of the region are struggling.

This shift changes how startups build teams. When money is easy, founders hire to show momentum. Now, with capital concentrated, they hire to prove execution. These are different philosophies, with different roles and candidates. The companies still getting funded can show every hire made a difference.

The real warning sign is the drought in seed-stage funding. Seed deals dropped sharply in a year. That’s the pipeline for future Series A rounds—if the seed market stays tight, many startups simply won’t exist to raise later. A thinner early ecosystem will ripple through hiring, talent, and the health of LatAm’s tech workforce before it shows up in big-picture VC data.

There’s one reason for optimism: several VC firms that raised funds in recent years are close to deploying that capital, so a new wave of investment is likely in 2026 and 2027. The rebound has started. The only question is whether it broadens out or stays concentrated at the top.

Advice:

If you’re a founder raising in Latin America, every hire needs a clear answer to what they make possible that no one else can. Investors are grilling teams the same way they question products. Build for that scrutiny.

3. Oracle plans to cut up to 30,000 jobs to fund its AI data centers.

Recap: Bloomberg reported on March 5 that Oracle is planning major layoffs across divisions, with estimates as high as 30,000 jobs, which is about 12 to 18 percent of its global workforce. The reason is a cash crunch from a massive AI data center expansion, including a $156 billion OpenAI deal. Oracle’s stock has dropped sharply, open positions are frozen, and they’re considering selling the Cerner healthcare unit. Wall Street expects negative cash flow for years before the AI investment pays off.

This is a different kind of layoff than what happened at Block.

Block cut people because AI made them more productive. Oracle, in contrast, is cutting people to pay for an overextended bet on AI infrastructure. These layoffs aren’t about efficiency; they’re collateral damage from the AI arms race.

Oracle is locked into a $156 billion deal with OpenAI. With banks pulling back from financing data centers, Oracle’s borrowing costs have doubled and the stock has dropped. Payroll is the fastest place to cut. This isn’t AI replacing work; it’s overcommitting to the buildout and making people pay for the GPU bill.

The real lesson: betting on AI infrastructure as a moat without understanding the returns is dangerous. Oracle went all in to compete with AWS and Azure. The demand is there, and contracts are signed, but the timing and financing created a squeeze that lands on the workforce.

Advice:

Watch Oracle’s earnings this week. How they frame the cuts will reveal how companies talk about AI-driven restructuring. The framing will shape how boards and investors judge similar moves elsewhere.

That’s it for this week.

Two stories this week have a common theme: capital is concentrating, deals are fewer, and every hiring decision faces more scrutiny than ever. Anthropic shows which roles are at risk. LatAm VC data reveals the funding environment for builders in the region. Oracle shows what happens when you bet on AI before the economics make sense.

I help founders and operators build teams in Latin America. The most important question now isn’t how many people, but which people and why those roles matter right now. If you want to talk about it, you know where to find me: lupahire.com or just reply here.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

News moved quickly this week, and so did opinions. Three big stories came one after another, all raising the same question: what happens to knowledge workers as AI keeps advancing?

Every client conversation lately circles back to this. Not in a “sky is falling” way—just practical. What does your team actually need humans for, and what’s just inertia? The companies that take time to sort this out now will be in far better shape than the ones scrambling to react later.

At Lupa, we work with companies to hire with purpose. Before a job goes live, we dig into what the role actually needs to accomplish. That’s become more useful in 2026 than it ever was a few years ago.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Jack Dorsey Cut 40% of Block’s Workforce and Said Most Companies Will Do the Same

Recap: On February 26, Block — the parent company of Square and Cash App — announced it was laying off more than 4,000 employees, reducing its workforce from roughly 10,000 to under 6,000. CEO Jack Dorsey tied the decision directly to AI, writing in a shareholder letter that “intelligence tools have changed what it means to build and run a company.” The business is not in distress; Block reported $2.87 billion in gross profit in Q4, up 24% year over year. Dorsey said he expected most companies to reach the same conclusion within a year. Block’s stock surged as much as 24% on the news. Critics noted that Block more than doubled its headcount between 2019 and 2022, and some analysts attributed the cut as much to COVID-era overhiring correction as to genuine AI displacement.

Forget the headcount. The way markets responded says more: Block slashed nearly half its staff, profits stayed strong, and shares jumped 24%. Investors are favoring lean, AI-powered teams these days—even if AI isn’t doing all the work yet.

Dorsey avoided the usual corporate language. There was no mention of restructuring or realignment. He pointed to AI as the reason and acted on it. Some of this is just correcting overhiring from the COVID boom, but the way he explained it is what’s getting other boards’ attention.

If you’re running a team, pay attention to what markets actually care about right now. The companies getting rewarded are lean and know how to use AI. Hanging on to a bloated headcount from the old growth-at-all-costs playbook? That’s a harder story to sell.

Slashing staff doesn’t make AI effective overnight. Block spent years developing its own AI tools before cutting headcount. They got efficient, then made staffing changes. Companies that try it the other way around are just putting new labels on layoffs.

Advice:

Before you consider how many people AI could replace, ask yourself how much of your current work is clearly defined enough for AI to handle. Most teams need more clarity before they worry about headcount. Focus on that first.

2. Nvidia Beat Estimates by a Wide Margin — and the Stock Fell Anyway

Recap: Nvidia reported fiscal Q4 2026 results on February 25, posting $68.1 billion in revenue — up 73% year over year and well ahead of analyst estimates. Data center revenue hit $62.3 billion, up 75%. The company guided Q1 2027 revenue to $78 billion, also above expectations. Despite what one Morgan Stanley analyst called “the largest, cleanest beat and raise in the history of the semis industry,” Nvidia shares dropped more than 5% the following day. Investor concerns centered on whether hyperscaler AI infrastructure spending — forecast to approach $700 billion combined this year across Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft — would ultimately generate returns. China remains excluded from revenue projections due to export restrictions.

The numbers are huge, but the reaction tells you more about where we are right now.

Nvidia’s numbers would have seemed impossible a few years ago. The infrastructure and demand are real, and even Jensen Huang says agentic AI is here. But Wall Street’s focus has changed. Now, it’s all about whether these huge investments will actually pay off.

It’s a fair question. Big tech companies are investing hundreds of billions in AI. Some bets will pay off, while others might end up like the fiber glut of 1999: useful later, but too much too soon. No one really knows what’s ahead.

AI infrastructure spending keeps unlocking new capabilities, and tools that were out of reach two years ago are suddenly affordable. Plenty of teams are paying for the tech, but the real difference comes from actually using it to change how work gets done—not just letting subscriptions pile up.

The teams seeing real value from AI have changed their habits along with their tools. That takes time. You don’t get it just by springing for the new license.

Advice:

Review the AI tools your team pays for. For each tool, ask yourself what would stop working or slow down if you stopped using it tomorrow. If the answer is “not much,” you’re likely stuck in a subscription trap. Choose one workflow and rebuild it around the tool before adding more.

3. Microsoft’s AI Chief Says White-Collar Work Will Be Fully Automated in 18 Months

Recap: In an interview with the Financial Times published in late February, Mustafa Suleyman, CEO of Microsoft AI, said he expects AI to reach “human-level performance on most, if not all professional tasks” within 12 to 18 months. He listed lawyers, accountants, project managers, and marketing professionals as those most at risk. Suleyman pointed to faster computing power and the rapid changes already happening in software engineering, where he said engineers have shifted from writing code to “debugging, scrutinizing, and strategic work.” His statement came the same week as Block’s layoffs and a viral essay comparing today’s AI moment to the early days of COVID, which was widely shared and debated.

Every so often, another big AI name says something like this, the internet debates it, and then moves on. AI is going to reshape white-collar work—no question. The real issue is the fixation on an 18-month timeline and the word “automated.”

“AI can do this task” isn’t the same as “AI has replaced this job.” The gap isn’t technical; it’s organizational. Companies already have AI tools for drafting, summarizing, writing copy—you name it. But changing how work actually gets done takes much longer. The real holdup is whether leadership is willing to rethink workflows, structures, and accountability.

Suleyman knows it, too. And, of course, he works at Microsoft, which has every reason to hype this timeline. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong—but it’s something to keep in mind.

From what I’ve seen, the first roles to disappear aren’t always the easiest to automate on paper. It’s the fuzzy jobs—where no one’s sure what the person really does, value isn’t clear, and a manager can quietly hand it to AI without pushback. The well-defined, judgment-heavy roles? Those tend to stick around. The vague ones don’t.

Advice:

Take a hard look at your team. Instead of thinking about what AI could do in theory, figure out which roles actually deliver clear, uniquely human value. Can you sum up what unique judgment each person brings—something AI can’t reliably match? If not, you don’t have to cut the role, but you should talk about it now, before you’re forced to.

That’s it for this week.

All three stories point in the same direction: markets are rewarding companies that figure out how to use AI for real efficiency, and the conversation about what that means for teams is speeding up faster than most leaders realize.

I’m not here for the doomsday predictions, and you shouldn’t be either. The real question is: if AI can handle more work, what should your team focus on? The companies that figure this out and hire for it will be the ones people want to join in the future.

That’s the conversation I have with clients every week. If it’s one you want to have, reach out or reply here.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

After what happened in Jalisco this weekend, a few people reached out to check if I was okay. I appreciate that.

But people outside Mexico sometimes forget how big the country is. The situation in Tapalpa and parts of Guadalajara was serious, but Mexico City, where most of our team is based, is over 500 kilometers away. Cancún is even farther—more than 2,000 kilometers. Most of Mexico went about business as usual.

I mention this because companies often make a similar mistake with global teams. One headline can shape the whole story. One event can lead to assumptions about an entire country.

If you’re hiring people from other countries, you can’t afford to oversimplify like that.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. They built the AI. Then they got laid off.

Recap: Salesforce quietly laid off nearly 1,000 employees in early February, cutting roles across marketing, product management, data analytics, and its Agentforce AI team. This follows last year’s elimination of roughly 4,000 customer support roles, which CEO Marc Benioff attributed to AI agents handling support tasks. Five senior executives also exited between December and February.

It’s ironic: the people who built the automation tools ended up being replaced by them. The system is operating exactly as designed, with no contradiction in its logic.

Benioff has been more open than most. AI cut customer support jobs from 9,000 to about 5,000. Now, agents handle about half of customer conversations. Revenue is strong and efficiency has improved. The message is clear: if software can do your job, the company will choose higher margins.

It’s not just about cutting costs. It’s about shifting value. Support, marketing, and data teams got smaller, while sales grew. Companies are making it clear which roles they think matter most in an AI-driven world. The rest are seen as flexible.

Salesforce is just one example that helps explain what motivates companies.

Advice:

If you tell your team that AI is there to help, be clear about what that actually means. Spell out what will change and what won’t. People can deal with restructuring, but they struggle when leaders act like nothing important has changed.

2. AI skills now pay more than degrees

Recap: Research from Oxford and the World Economic Forum shows AI skills now command a 23% wage premium in the UK, compared to 13% for a master’s degree and 8% for a bachelor’s. Separate hiring experiments found listing AI skills significantly increases callback rates. Meanwhile, over 90% of professionals report receiving no formal AI training in the past year.

The market now values practical skills more than degrees. That’s a big change. Companies care less about your education and more about what you can automate.

But most companies are solving this the lazy way. They are paying premiums to hire externally instead of upgrading internally. That creates a small elite inside the company and a large group quietly falling behind.

If AI skills carry a 23% premium, training is no longer optional. It’s leverage. The companies that build AI fluency across teams will outcompete the ones poaching the same résumé keywords from each other.

Degrees show potential, but skills show results. The market is making its choice.

Advice:

Before you increase salary bands for your next AI hire, increase your training budget. Capability compounds internally. Recruitment premiums don’t.

3. Layoffs are accelerating. The framing hasn’t changed.

Recap: More than 40,000 tech workers have been laid off so far in 2026 across over 100 events. Amazon alone accounts for 16,000 cuts. Meta reduced 1,500 roles from Reality Labs. Several firms cite AI adoption and operational efficiency while simultaneously reporting strong revenues.

At this point, the script is predictable. Announce restructuring. Mention AI. Emphasize efficiency. Stock holds. Months later, new roles appear in different departments.

Margin discipline is driving this situation, not collapse. Many of these companies are profitable. They are not reacting to crisis. They are optimizing.

For smaller companies, this creates a window. The market is full of experienced operators who did not fail. They were reallocated out of the model.

But here’s the catch. If you hire them and run your company the same way Big Tech did, you will recreate the same churn.

Advice:

If you’re hiring, this is an opportunity. If you’re leading, don’t copy restructuring language without understanding the consequences. And if you were laid off, understand this: many cuts right now are strategic, not performance-based. That distinction matters.

That’s it for this week.

No grand thesis. No dramatic prediction.

Just remember: headlines get all the attention, but real incentives are quieter. If you pay attention to what companies reward, cut, and train for, you’ll see where things are headed.

And if you’re thinking about building teams that don’t rely on panic cycles, I’m always open to that conversation.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

This week, I found myself in conversations I didn’t expect to have so soon. These weren’t sales calls, but internal discussions. I realized that a part of the business I’ve been quietly building now needs real leadership.

Last week, I shared that our RPO work is growing. Now, it’s grown enough that I’m looking for a Head of RPO to help lead and expand it. This feels both exciting and steady. RPO is the service I care about most because it focuses on systems instead of transactions. We work directly with teams for a flat monthly fee, doing the work together. There’s less noise and more action.

If you’re interested in applying or know someone who might be, please use this link to submit your application.

Moments like these change how I read the news. When you’re building something real, you stop reacting to every headline and start focusing on what truly shifts incentives, timelines, or behavior.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Trump and Petro moved from public feuding to cooperation, and that’s normal

Recap: President Donald Trump and Colombian President Gustavo Petro met this week after months of public clashes on social media and through official statements. The meeting focused on migration, drug trafficking, regional security, and Venezuela. Both sides described the conversation as constructive and signaled a willingness to coordinate more closely in the short term.

Recently, the two leaders exchanged insults in public, on Twitter, Truth Social, and through official channels. But when they met face to face, they got along well. This is common in international politics. Leaders often act tough for their own countries, then have practical talks when their interests match.

Any results from this meeting are positive, but likely short-term. Petro’s term is almost over, and Colombia will choose a new president soon. Any deals or changes in tone should be seen with that in mind. This is not a lasting shift, just a response to current needs.

What is stable is the underlying relationship. The vast majority of Colombians prefer strong ties with the United States. The countries have deep economic, cultural, and people-to-people connections that outlast any individual president. Those fundamentals matter more than public sparring between leaders.

Advice:

If you do business in Colombia or hire people there, don’t let political drama worry you. Short-term teamwork is useful, but long-term choices should rely on the strong ties between the countries, not the news. The U.S.-Colombia relationship is bigger and more stable than any one government.

2. The new H-1B rule benefits large companies more than startups

Recap: The U.S. government has changed the H-1B visa lottery to give preference to higher-paying jobs. Now, people applying for higher-paid roles are more likely to be chosen, while those in lower-paid roles have less chance. The official reason is to support “high-skilled” immigration, but in practice, this helps bigger companies with set pay scales.

This change is not about restricting immigration, but about shifting who benefits. The system now favors employers who can offer higher pay and handle more risk, which usually means large companies instead of startups.

For startups, relying on the H-1B was already risky. This new rule makes that risk even clearer. If your hiring plan depends on a lottery that now favors those who pay the most, it is not a solid foundation.

This fits a larger trend. Immigration options are getting less flexible, more costly, and more focused on big companies. While it is still possible to find talent, companies now need to reconsider their hiring strategies instead of relying on the U.S. visa system.

Advice:

If you run a startup or a growing company, avoid tying key roles to H-1B results. Create hiring plans that do not depend on lotteries, delays, or changing policies. This often means building remote teams, hiring internationally, or designing roles so your business is not at the mercy of immigration rules.

3. Dating apps are losing trust, and that’s a business problem

Recap: Match Group says Tinder is still losing active users, and Hinge’s growth is slowing down. Meanwhile, a viral Hinge “experiment” showed a man making a fake female profile that got over 1,000 likes in just one day. This sparked new debate about how dating apps share attention and value, making users even more frustrated and raising fresh questions about long-term engagement and retention.

Some might see this as just online drama, but it shows a deeper problem. Dating apps only succeed when users feel their effort is rewarded fairly. If many users feel ignored or manipulated, trust fades—even if the numbers still look good.

The real issue is incentives. Companies like Match Group focus on engagement, subscriptions, and keeping people on the app. Over time, this often means most of the attention and success goes to just a few users. That might help in the short run, but it eventually causes many others to leave instead of becoming loyal customers.

This pattern isn’t just in dating apps—it happens on other consumer platforms too. When products move away from what users expect, growth slows down and even employees start to question things. It’s not only about losing users. It’s about people losing faith in what the product is supposed to do.

Advice:

If you’re building a product, pay attention to where users are getting frustrated—not just where the money is coming from. If people start calling your product demoralizing instead of helpful, the issue isn’t just marketing or features. It’s about alignment. Fix it early, or you’ll lose users later.

That’s it for this week.

Most weeks don’t come with clean conclusions. They just add a little more context to the decisions you’re already making. This one felt like that.

If you’re hiring, building teams, or managing products, the work might look straightforward on paper but is tough in real life. Focus on what really impacts your daily work. Be clear about tradeoffs, and try not to get distracted by things that aren’t urgent.

If you or someone you know is interested in the Head of RPO role, please let me know.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

The year has started off really well. I’m especially happy to see our RPO business growing so strongly. I’ve wanted to focus on this part of Lupa for a long time, so watching it take off has been truly energizing.

Just to clarify, since I’m often asked about this: RPO stands for Recruitment Process Outsourcing. Instead of paying a fee each time you hire, we support your recruiting or HR team for a set monthly fee. This model works especially well for companies that hire regularly, as it better aligns everyone’s incentives.

On a lighter note, I recently went to a Mexican wedding and somehow ended up wearing a sombrero. I’m sharing a picture because I think I actually pulled it off.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Why the 75-country visa freeze is not a hiring ban

Recap: Starting January 21, 2026, the U.S. Department of State will stop issuing immigrant visas for people from 75 countries. This affects both family and employment-based green cards. The pause only applies to consular processing outside the U.S. and does not have a set end date, but interviews and applications can still move forward. Non-immigrant visas, like those for temporary work, students, and business travel, are still being processed as usual.

Whenever a policy like this comes out, especially one affecting countries often used for remote or nearshore hiring, founders and HR leaders ask me if it causes problems for them. The answer is no. This is only a pause on immigrant visas that lead to permanent residency. It is not a ban on hiring or on work-eligible visas.

For hiring managers and leaders, the key point is this difference. You can still hire people from these countries, pay them, manage them, and build teams with them. This policy does not affect non-immigrant work visas, and it does not stop anyone from working remotely for a U.S. company from their home country.

The most relevant historical comparison many of us have lived through is Venezuela under sanctions. U.S. companies paused some formal immigration pathways, and some paused hiring entirely out of fear. But what we actually learned was that talent does not evaporate when paperwork slows. You still hire, still integrate, and still build outcomes. Administrative friction is not the same as legal prohibition.

There are tools and services that help you hire across borders when usual options are limited. International payroll and employer-of-record services let you legally employ people without opening a local office or signing contracts yourself. We use these methods too when they fit. The real risk is not in hiring internationally, but in thinking that policy headlines change what you can actually do.

Advice:

Don’t let this visa pause stop your hiring or planning. If someone is in a country affected by the suspension, be open about it, but make it clear that you are not stopping employment—only that moving to the U.S. permanently may take longer. Use payroll and compliance partners as needed, and put your energy into onboarding, training, and keeping your team, not worrying about paperwork. This policy slows down paperwork, but it does not stop work.

2. Return-to-office mandates are here to stay, but most teams shouldn’t follow their lead

Recap: A recent arbitration ruling at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services confirmed that presidential return-to-office directives do not automatically override existing union contracts. This shows that federal RTO mandates have legal and procedural limits, even as the administration keeps pushing for more in-person work in public agencies and large organizations.

We discussed this last week and have mentioned it before. These legal steps will take time, with ongoing discussions in courts, unions, and internal reviews. Still, the long-term trend is clear: large organizations and public institutions will likely have more people working in the office over time.

But that doesn’t mean you should do the same. Big companies and government agencies face different challenges. They deal with old office spaces, strict management structures, political pressure, and less flexibility. Office mandates make sense for them, even if they aren’t always efficient.

I often see smaller companies copying these moves without thinking about the reasons. Startups and mid-sized teams gain a lot from being flexible, hiring global talent, and keeping costs low. Giving that up just to follow Amazon or a federal agency is rarely a smart strategy. Usually, it’s just a reaction to the news.

Advice:

If you are reconsidering remote work, do it deliberately. Write down what you gain from being distributed, what it would cost to reverse that, and what problem you are actually trying to solve. Make the decision based on your team, your economics, and your goals, not because larger institutions are reverting to older models that fit their reality, not yours.

3. The Doomsday Clock is good at one thing: distracting you

Recap: The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set its Doomsday Clock to 85 seconds before midnight, the closest it has ever been. They pointed to rising nuclear tensions between the U.S., Russia, and China, ongoing wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, weaker arms control, and worries about AI. Major news outlets covered the announcement.

This story comes up every few years. The clock moves closer, the headlines get more dramatic, and it takes over the news for a short time. I saw it, felt annoyed, and now I’m talking about it.

To be clear, the people behind the clock are serious, and the risks they mention are real. But the way they present it is meant to stir up emotion, not provide clarity. It doesn’t help you make better choices or change your actions. It just takes your focus away from things you can actually control.

That’s the real problem. Even people who know better, like me, still get caught up in it. We end up reacting to big, abstract problems instead of focusing on real work. Distraction doesn’t come from being careless, but from feeling like everything is urgent.

Advice:

Pay attention to what grabs your focus without helping you make better choices. If a headline makes you anxious but doesn’t give you anything useful to do, notice it and move on. Your time is better spent making decisions that help your team, your customers, and your work—not on clocks that change once a year.

That’s it for this week.

If there’s one theme here, it’s attention. Some stories are meant to catch your eye, while others quietly influence how we hire, manage teams, and make choices. The challenge is knowing which is which.

As always, focus on what you can control. Choose carefully what you respond to, and don’t let distractions decide for you.

If you want to discuss hiring, team structure, or whether RPO is right for you, just reach out.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

This week, we had what people like to call Blue Monday, supposedly the most depressing day of the year. I’m not sure I buy it. Especially if your team is fully remote.

From leading distributed teams, I’ve learned that mood and momentum depend more on clarity than on dates or office spaces. When people know what’s going on, what’s expected, and the direction ahead, distractions matter less.

That’s why these stories caught my attention this week. They highlight times when institutions, leaders, and companies face pressure and must respond while everyone is watching. AI adoption, capital discipline, and talent deals aren’t just trends—they affect how teams feel, how careers progress, and how trust is earned or lost.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. AI anxiety is a leadership problem, not a technology one

Recap: A global Randstad Workmonitor survey of 27,000 employees found that 80 percent expect AI to change their daily work. Gen Z feels the most anxious about automation, while Baby Boomers are the most confident about adapting. Meanwhile, job postings asking for AI skills have increased quickly, but few workers have received formal AI training.

This newsletter has always stressed one thing: AI should help teams become stronger, not just reduce their size. The fear in this data makes sense. People naturally worry when they are unsure if the goal is to support them or to replace them.

The generational divide is clear. Older workers have seen many technology changes, from spreadsheets to cloud software to mobile devices. For them, AI is just another tool to learn. Younger workers are newer to their careers, often in jobs that can be automated, and they have had much less training. What seems like confidence or fear is really about experience and uncertainty.

For leaders, your intentions are important. If you want to use AI to boost speed and quality, not to cut jobs, you need to say so clearly. If you stay silent, people will make their own assumptions. When companies introduce new tools without explaining why, employees often fear the worst, especially since layoffs are now common after efficiency improvements.

Advice:

If you are bringing in AI and do not plan to reduce your team, say it early and plainly. Put money into training before buying new tools, and make sure everyone knows who is responsible. People trust leaders when they understand why a tool is being used and how it will change their job, not when they are left to figure it out on their own.

2. Argentina paid Washington back fast, and that changes how the market sees it

Recap: In late 2025, the U.S. Treasury extended a $20 billion currency swap line to Argentina to stabilize the peso ahead of critical elections. Argentina ultimately drew $2.5 billion from that facility and fully repaid it within a few months. U.S. officials publicly framed the repayment as evidence of improving financial discipline under President Javier Milei.

At first, many saw the swap line as a risky political and financial move. Most did not expect Argentina to act quickly or repay the money. The government’s fast repayment is more than just a technical success. It shows credibility.

We have watched Milei’s actions closely, including his risks and bold moves. Still, what matters is getting things done. Quickly paying back U.S. dollars, in a country known for defaults and capital controls, changes how investors and partners see risk. Argentina still has challenges, but the baseline has shifted.

This change is clear in hiring. Argentina has long been a top spot for remote talent. As the country becomes more stable, Argentine professionals are charging higher rates. This is not a problem—it means the market values their reliability, global skills, and ambition. You are paying more for people ready to compete worldwide, not for uncertainty.

Advice:

If you are hiring in Argentina, it is time to adjust your expectations. The era of big discounts due to economic turmoil is ending. Now, you will find a large group of skilled professionals who know how to work internationally and expect fair treatment. Over time, this shift benefits companies that value quality and long-term results.

3. The FTC is closing the acqui-hire loophole Big Tech relied on

Recap: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission announced it is increasing scrutiny of acqui-hire deals, arrangements where large tech companies buy a startup’s talent or license its technology without acquiring the company itself. FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson said regulators are examining whether these deals are being used to bypass traditional antitrust review. Recent examples include Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, and Nvidia securing key talent or IP without full acquisitions.

Acqui-hires were not really about making innovation more efficient. They were about avoiding risk. As traditional mergers and acquisitions got slower, more public, and more regulated, Big Tech started buying results in parts—talent in one deal, IP in another—so they could avoid extra scrutiny.

Now, the risk is shifting. Big companies can handle more regulation, but founders cannot. If your exit plan relies on being quietly bought without much attention, that plan quickly becomes risky when regulators step in. What once seemed like smart deal-making now looks more like trying to get around the rules.

This pattern is nothing new. Shortcuts work only for a while. When regulators get involved, value returns to companies that build real products, earn real revenue, and have strong teams. Deals that only grab talent are easy for regulators to undo. Real businesses are much harder to overlook.

Advice:

If you are a founder, don’t assume a quiet acqui-hire will be an easy way out. Build something that can stand up to close review. If you are hiring, be ready for more competition for top talent in the open market. When loopholes close, the work still gets done, just in a more open and honest way.

That’s it for this week.

When things get tougher, shortcuts start to look appealing. Some leaders say less. Some organizations try to act quietly. Some markets change prices faster than people expect.

The companies that succeed aren’t always the fastest to react. Instead, they explain their choices clearly, invest where it counts, and build things that last when people start looking more closely.

If you’re considering hiring, team structure, or where to focus this year, now is a good time to slow down and think things through. Most problems I see aren’t caused by bad intentions, but by avoiding tough conversations.

If you’d like to discuss what this could mean for your team or your plans this year, feel free to reach out. My calendar is open.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

And just like that, we are already two weeks into the new year.

I received many thoughtful replies to last week’s issue about Venezuela and the United States. People who live in the region or work with Venezuelans sent emails, messages, and quiet notes. I’m grateful for that. When I have direct experience and real context through the people I work with, I’ll share it again. I want to offer perspective based on reality, not quick opinions.

This week feels different. It’s not noisier, just clearer. A few signals are starting to appear that say a lot about what 2026 might look like for companies, teams, and careers. These signals aren’t new, but seeing them come together so early in the year is worth noticing.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Large companies are bringing employees back to the office, but most teams shouldn’t follow their lead

Recap: Newsweek recently highlighted several big companies, like Meta, Microsoft, NBCUniversal, Paramount, TikTok, and major banks, that are enforcing stricter return-to-office rules for 2026. Many now require employees to be in the office four or five days a week, and some are ending hybrid work altogether. Executives say they are doing this for reasons like culture, collaboration, and productivity.

If you look closely at the list, a clear pattern appears. These are huge companies with well-known products, stable structures, lots of infrastructure, and a long track record of profits. They are not trying new things—they are focusing on what already works for them.

What often gets lost is that these companies are solving very specific problems. Office mandates help justify long-term real estate costs, reassert managerial control, and quietly reduce headcount without announcing layoffs. That logic can make sense at scale, but it does not translate cleanly to smaller or faster-moving teams.

The broader trend here is imitation without context. When high-profile leaders bash remote work, it creates pressure to follow along. But copying the constraints of companies that are ten times your size often hurts more than it helps. Structure is useful only when it matches where you actually are.

Advice:

Before you decide to rent office space or end remote work, take a moment to think about the problem you want to solve. If your company gains from being flexible, hiring talent from anywhere, or keeping costs low, those advantages are still important. Often, the quickest way to lose ground is to copy others when your situation is different.

2. Claude Cowork didn’t kill entry-level jobs, bad leadership will

Recap: Anthropic released Claude Cowork, an AI agent that can autonomously read, create, and modify files on a user’s computer. The tool can plan and execute multi-step tasks with minimal supervision, and reactions online were immediate. Many people argued this signals the end of entry-level and junior roles, especially in knowledge work.

A lot of the reaction focused on replacement. The idea that AI agents will simply wipe out junior roles and that companies can run leaner teams by cutting people. That framing misses where most organizations actually fail: not in task execution but in judgment, coordination, and accountability.

From a leadership perspective, the real leverage is not removing humans from the loop. It is upgrading them. A person who understands the business, knows how to prompt and supervise these tools, and can catch mistakes will consistently outperform an unsupervised AI agent. Tools raise the ceiling for good operators; they do not replace the need for them.

The broader pattern is familiar. New tools always look like labor substitutes at first. Over time, they become force multipliers for teams that invest in training and clarity, and sources of chaos for teams that treat them as shortcuts. The difference is not the technology. It is how seriously leadership treats enablement versus cost-cutting.

Advice:

If you are running a team, do not start by asking which roles you can eliminate. Start by asking who on your team actually knows how to use these tools well, and who you need to train. AI without ownership creates risk. AI paired with capable people creates leverage.

3. When people trust a chatbot with their health, something else is broken

Recap: OpenAI introduced ChatGPT Health, a special mode for health and wellness questions, after saying that over 230 million people ask ChatGPT about health each week. This feature lets users talk about symptoms, fitness, and medical information in a private space. OpenAI says it is meant to support, not replace, doctors.

We should ask ourselves how we reached this point. The real question isn’t why people are interested in AI, but why so many feel okay turning to a chatbot for questions about their health and medical choices. This change didn’t happen because AI became more trustworthy. It happened because other options became harder to get.

This isn’t just a story about technology—it’s about the bigger system. Long waits, high costs, confusing care, and limited access have led people to search for answers wherever they can. ChatGPT Health didn’t create this need. It simply filled a gap that was already there.

For leaders and policymakers, this is a worrying trend. When millions depend on a system that works by probability for health advice, it’s hard to know who is responsible. AI can help explain, summarize, and get people ready to talk to professionals, but it can’t take the blame if something goes wrong. That responsibility still belongs to institutions that are already under pressure.

Advice:

If you are building products, teams, or policies around AI, pay attention to why users show up in the first place. Adoption at this scale is rarely about novelty. It is usually a signal that existing systems are failing to meet basic needs, and that is where the real work begins.

That’s it for this week.

If there’s one thing these stories have in common, it’s that when pressure rises, organizations often try to control things before improving their skills. Offices take the place of trust. Tools stand in for training. Shortcuts are used instead of building real systems.

This doesn’t mean remote work is always the answer, that AI is risk-free, or that institutions can’t be fixed. It does show that when leaders are under stress, their true priorities come out fast.

As you plan for the rest of 2026, notice which problems you’re really solving and which ones you might be putting off. That difference is more important than following any trend.

If you’d like to discuss what this could mean for your team, your hiring plans, or your approach to structure this year, feel free to reach out. I’m available to talk.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

Happy New Year, and thank you for continuing to read The Weekly Shortlist in 2026.

We had a real break at Lupa over the holidays. Hiring slows down in late December and early January, and most of our team is in Latin America, where year-end breaks are taken seriously. I gave everyone two weeks of PTO before Christmas, and we came back online this week. I still took a few calls at the end because I am bad at fully switching off, but overall it was a good reset.

Coming back on Monday, the news about the U.S. attacks in Venezuela hit hard. The first thing I did was call Venezuelan colleagues and friends to check on their families and hear what they had to say. Then friends across the Americas started reaching out to ask what I made of it. When you live and work here, you get used to the gap between what the media shows and what people on the ground are actually experiencing.

The reality is complicated. Leadership in both countries is questionable. There are serious issues around international law, justice, corruption, and U.S. power. None of that disappears just because a president is toppled. But setting that aside for a moment, from a human and operator perspective, this is ultimately a positive development.

I started Lupa after spending years working across Latin America and meeting Venezuelans everywhere I went. I wanted them on my team. They are elite professionals. Resilient, adaptable, calm under pressure, and deeply aware that opportunities are not guaranteed. That last part matters more than most people realize. They do not get these opportunities back home, and it shapes how they work.

Years later, some of the Venezuelans on our founding team are still with me. I have wanted to visit Venezuela for a long time, something that has not been realistic for years. I still do not know when that will be possible. But I know what it would mean.

This week, we are talking about Venezuela, not as a headline, but as a country full of people whose talent has been constrained for a long time, and what it means when those constraints begin to shift.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. What actually happened in Venezuela over the weekend

Recap: Early on January 3, U.S. forces launched military strikes on Venezuelan military sites and infrastructure near Caracas. Soon after, special operations forces captured Nicolás Maduro at his home. The operation took under two hours and met almost no resistance. Maduro was then taken out of Venezuela and brought to the United States, where he faces federal charges that were first made public in 2020.

The operation started at about 2 a.m. local time. The first strikes hit military bases, air defense systems, and supply sites to stop the Venezuelan military from organizing a response. Soon after, some areas of Caracas lost power and commercial flights were interrupted. U.S. officials said these actions were meant to prevent threats, not to retaliate.

After the strikes, U.S. special operations forces went into Caracas and headed straight to Maduro’s home. Reports say Venezuelan security forces did not put up much resistance. Maduro was arrested, taken to a U.S. aircraft carrier, and then flown to the United States. Within hours, videos and photos showed him arriving in New York and appearing in federal court.

The U.S. government described the operation as part of its ongoing fight against drugs and terrorism. Officials referred to long-standing claims that Maduro and top officials in his government are tied to drug trafficking and terrorist groups. These accusations had been around for years but had not led to direct action against Maduro until now.

In Venezuela, reactions were mixed. Maduro’s supporters called the operation a kidnapping and an illegal foreign attack. Loyalist groups quickly set up an interim leadership, while opposition leaders showed relief but also worry about the lack of a clear plan for what comes next.

International reaction was divided. Several governments in Latin America condemned the action as a violation of sovereignty. Others, particularly on the political right, expressed support or avoided direct criticism. European governments issued cautious statements focused on stability and human rights. The United Nations reiterated concerns about the precedent such an operation sets under international law.

In the United States, the operation triggered legal and political scrutiny. Questions were raised about war powers, congressional authorization, and the legality of capturing a sitting head of state without international approval. The administration defended its actions by citing post-9/11 authorities and national security exceptions, signaling that it views this as a continuation of existing enforcement policy rather than a new military conflict.

Right now, the biggest question is who will govern Venezuela. U.S. officials say they will run a transition. Sanctions, diplomatic ties, and economic policies have not changed, so Venezuela remains in political limbo even after Maduro’s removal

2. A brief history of relations between the U.S. and Venezuela

Recap: Throughout most of the 20th century, the United States and Venezuela had strong political and economic connections. Venezuela supplied oil to the U.S. reliably, and American companies were active in the Venezuelan energy sector. Trade between the two countries grew steadily. These close ties lasted until the late 1990s, only starting to weaken after Hugo Chávez became president in 1999.

Things were different in the past. For many years, Venezuela was one of the closest partners in Latin America. U.S. oil companies helped build up Venezuela’s energy industry, especially after big oil discoveries in the early 1900s. By the middle of the century, Venezuela was one of the world’s top oil exporters and a major supplier to the U.S., especially during World War II and the years that followed.

The connection between the two countries went beyond oil. Compared to its neighbors, Venezuela was considered politically stable and kept its democratic institutions for much of the late 1900s. American companies invested in many areas, and Venezuelan professionals, engineers, and executives often moved between Caracas, Houston, New York, and Miami. In the U.S., Venezuelans were seen as skilled workers and business partners, not as refugees or political exiles.

Things started to change in the late 1990s. When Hugo Chávez was elected in 1998, he took a more confrontational stance toward the U.S. and made the oil industry more political. Even though trade and oil exports to the U.S. continued at first, trust faded as the government took greater control and the country’s systems weakened. The relationship did not end all at once, but slowly fell apart after almost a hundred years of close ties.

When considering Venezuela today, it’s important to remember that cooperation, not conflict, was the norm for most of its history. The decline in U.S.–Venezuela relations happened only recently. If the two countries rebuild their relationship in the future, it will probably look more like a return to their old economic ties than something completely new.

3. What reopening Venezuela could actually mean for U.S. business

Recap: Now that Nicolás Maduro is out and a transition period seems to have started, people are beginning to focus on what’s next for Venezuela’s economy and its ties with the United States. Sanctions are still in place, the government’s future is uncertain, and no one knows how long this will last. Meanwhile, Venezuelans both at home and abroad are openly talking about the chance to rebuild economic connections, find work, and team up with U.S. companies.

I want to be thoughtful about this. I don’t want to come across as opportunistic or as the gringo who assumes Latin America is just waiting to be discovered. That stereotype exists for a reason. But when I talk to Venezuelans, including my colleagues, I don’t hear resentment. I hear anticipation. Many are truly excited about the chance to work with Americans again, as equals, without politics getting in the way.

This is important because business ties between the U.S. and Venezuela didn’t fall apart due to a lack of compatibility. They broke down because the institutions failed. The talent was always there. Venezuelan professionals adapted, moved abroad, and succeeded elsewhere. Now there’s a whole generation that knows global standards, remote work, U.S. business culture, and how quickly opportunities can change. That mix is hard to find.

Since this is a business newsletter, let’s talk about timing. Many U.S. companies already work with Venezuelans remotely, and that’s become normal. The real question is what will happen when working together in person is possible again. It won’t happen overnight, and there are risks, but it will happen eventually. Offices, partnerships, and a long-term presence will only succeed for companies that take time to understand the country before everyone else rushes in.

Advice:

If you run a company with exposure to Latin America, start learning now, quietly and seriously. Build relationships, not narratives. Work with Venezuelan talent where they are today, and listen to how they think about the future. First-mover advantage does not come from being early to extract value. It comes from being early to understand how to build something that lasts.

That’s it for this week.

I know this was not a standard edition of The Weekly Shortlist. But this is not a normal moment, and pretending otherwise wouldn’t be honest. Venezuela is not just a headline or a policy debate. It’s people I work with, people I trust, and people whose careers were shaped by forces far outside their control.

If there’s one thread running through everything here, it’s this: talent doesn’t disappear when a country breaks. It moves. And when conditions change, even slowly, that talent looks for ways to reconnect, not to settle scores.

If you’re a founder, operator, or hiring manager interested in Latin America, now is the time to listen more than you speak. Get to know the history. Have real conversations. Focus on building relationships before making plans.

If you’d like to discuss what this might mean for your team or hiring plans, feel free to reach out. My calendar is always open.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

This is our final edition for the year.

Before we wrap things up for the holidays, I wanted to end on a note that feels honest about where things are heading. This year made one thing very clear to me: the gap between signal and noise is getting wider.

Governments are bringing in real builders. The word “slop” is now part of everyday language. Even the world’s most established brands are figuring out what AI should and shouldn’t do.

These changes aren’t just ideas anymore. They’re shaping how teams form, how brands communicate, and where top talent decides to work.

This week’s stories aren’t just about trends. They focus on alignment—who’s doing meaningful work, who’s keeping their unique voice, and who’s choosing speed over control.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. The US government is recruiting straight from Big Tech

Recap: The US government is quietly hiring senior talent from top tech companies to drive its new technology and digital services efforts. Engineers, product leaders, and operators from Google, Meta, and Amazon are joining to work on AI, digital infrastructure, and modernization projects. These hires have real authority and control over budgets.

The big change is how goals now line up. For years, tech talent stayed away from government because it was slow, political, and lacked resources. Now, things are different. The government needs strong technical skills, and top people are interested because the challenges are large, clear, and long-term.

This shift also shows growth. The US now sees technology as core infrastructure, not just a side project. Instead of hiring consultants or advisory boards, they are bringing in people who have built large systems and learned from failure.

For founders, this shift is more important than politics. When the government competes with Big Tech for talent, it changes the market. The standard for what counts as ‘experienced’ goes up, and it shows that real results matter more than hype.

Advice:

Watch where top talent is heading. Skilled people go where they can make a difference. When the public sector hires builders instead of talkers, it means real work is about to happen. Make sure your company is ready for that shift, not just the chatter.

2. “Slop” becomes Word of the Year

Recap: Merriam-Webster chose “slop” as its Word of the Year because of the surge in low-quality, AI-generated content online. Now, people use the word to describe generic, mass-produced text, images, and videos that add more noise than value.

This struck a chord because it’s a common experience. Our feeds are packed, but most of it is forgettable. The real issue isn’t AI itself, but how easily it lets people create without care or responsibility. Slop isn’t just about technology—it’s about losing the human touch.

For brands, this is a clear warning. When everything sounds alike, standing out isn’t about being faster or bigger. It’s about having a unique voice and sharing real opinions—even if not everyone agrees. As more content becomes automated, genuine perspective matters even more.

Ironically, AI makes human work more valuable, not less. Original ideas, real experience, and a clear point of view are now advantages. Brands that show their unique traits, values, and real people will stand out. Those focused only on quantity will get lost.

Advice:

Let AI help your work, but don’t let it take over your identity. If your content sounds like anyone could have written it, it won’t stand out. Focus on being clear, thoughtful, and true to your voice. That’s how you rise above the slop.

3. Disney Lets OpenAI Train on Its Characters

Recap: Disney has made a deal with OpenAI that lets the company use Disney-owned characters and intellectual property as part of their larger AI partnership. OpenAI can now use Disney content in specific, controlled ways. This raises questions about how famous characters might show up in AI-generated tools and outputs.

This is where concerns about low-quality, mass-produced content become serious.

Disney is known for tightly controlling its intellectual property. Every character, line, and image is created with purpose. Allowing these characters into generative AI systems means they could appear in situations Disney did not plan. Even with some controls in place, this could weaken their brand.

This is the main challenge. AI needs large, well-known datasets to be useful and interesting. Brands want to stay relevant and reach more people. But the more your intellectual property is used for training, the harder it is to control its tone, meaning, and quality. This can turn good storytelling into low-quality content.

If Disney is willing to make this trade-off, it shows how strong the pressure is. Companies are focused on growing and making money. The real question is whether people want more content, or if they prefer better, more human stories.

Advice:

If you have a brand, be careful about what you let AI systems use. Once your voice, characters, or ideas become training data, you can lose control quickly. In a world full of low-quality content, companies that protect their message and purpose will stand out more than those that just focus on quantity.

That’s it for this week.

I’m taking a short break and will return with the newsletter in the second week of January. I hope you get some real rest, enjoy time with family, and find a little peace and quiet until then.

If you’re planning to hire in early 2026, reorganize your team, or decide where to invest in talent, feel free to reach out. We don’t have to wait for the new year to start these conversations.

Thank you for reading, sharing, and being part of the conversation this year.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

The end of the year always brings a unique energy. Big changes start happening in tech—CEOs move to new companies, senior leaders dive into AI, and founders step aside to pursue new opportunities. These shifts always make me pause and take notice.

When senior leaders start to move, it often signals a shift in the market. If many move at the same time, it points to something even bigger. As operators, we can’t just copy their actions, but we can learn from their timing, motivations, and behind-the-scenes decisions.

This week, we’ll look at three major leadership changes and what they mean for founders, operators, and anyone building teams today.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Alan Dye Leaves Apple for Meta

Recap: Alan Dye, who led Apple’s Human Interface Design for almost twenty years, has left to head up a new Creative Studio at Meta’s Reality Labs. He will be in charge of product design, interfaces, and visual direction for Meta’s AR and VR projects. This move comes as Apple loses senior design leaders and Meta puts more focus on hardware after struggling with its metaverse plans.

Meta has attempted this before. They spent billions on the metaverse, promised a new computing platform, and ended up adding legs to avatars. So, why does it matter that they have now hired one of Apple’s top designers?

This time, the goal is not to create a fantasy world but to improve the real one. Meta now realizes that if they want people to use AR and VR every day, the product cannot feel like a tech demo. It needs to feel well-designed, seamless, and human. Dye spent years shaping interfaces that billions use without a second thought. Meta wants that expertise.

There is a larger trend happening. Apple is losing design leaders just as Meta is actively bringing them in. When a company shifts from aiming for perfection to settling for good enough, talented people start to show where the next big ambitions are.

Now we will see if Meta has learned from its metaverse mistakes. Having a vision without execution leads nowhere. But when strong execution is paired with great design talent, it can change the market.

Advice:

If you are building products in 2026, remember not to underestimate design. The most successful companies will not be those with the most AI features, but those whose products feel intuitive and alive. People choose what feels natural over what only seems futuristic.

2. Slack CEO Denise Dresser Joins OpenAI

Recap: Denise Dresser, the CEO of Slack, is leaving to become OpenAI’s first Chief Revenue Officer. She spent fourteen years at Salesforce and Slack, leading Slack through its integration after the acquisition and launching new AI features. Now, she will focus on growing OpenAI’s enterprise business. This move shows that OpenAI is shifting from research to making money at a global scale.

This is a clear sign that OpenAI is moving away from being just a research lab and is now acting like a software company focused on earning real enterprise revenue. Hiring a current CEO shows they are serious about building a strong sales operation.

This is a smart choice. Dresser may not be a well-known CEO, but she understands how to sell to large companies, close major deals, handle procurement, and create the steady operations needed for Fortune 500 clients. These skills are essential for turning AI interest into steady revenue.

There is also a cultural shift happening. Building enterprise AI now needs leaders who know sales, pricing, onboarding, renewals, and customer success—not just researchers and engineers. By hiring someone with experience at Salesforce, OpenAI is showing that enterprise AI revenue will look more like traditional software businesses than science fiction.

Advice:

If you are working on AI, take note. The focus is shifting from research to making money. Success will not just depend on having the best models, but also on having strong sales teams, good onboarding, and great customer results. Start building these strengths now.

3. Hinge’s CEO Steps Down, and It Says a Lot About the Dating App Business

Recap: Hinge CEO Justin McLeod is stepping down to start Overtone, a new dating app focused on AI and voice features that Match Group developed within Hinge. Match is backing the project, keeping a large ownership share, and moving Hinge’s CMO into the CEO role to maintain stability. Overtone is McLeod’s attempt to make voice-based connections the next big thing in dating apps, especially as users grow tired of current options.

We discussed this recently when Bumble had layoffs and changed its strategy. Dating apps may seem stable, but they actually follow trends. They grow quickly when popular, but if interest fades, the whole business can struggle. McLeod recognizes this change is on the horizon.

This isn’t a sign of trouble. It’s a smart precaution. Founders in established markets can tell when growth is slowing. That’s why McLeod is starting something new before Hinge loses momentum. We’ve seen this approach before on other platforms where user engagement drops and AI becomes the key difference.

McLeod is betting on voice-based interaction. It’s not that people suddenly prefer voice, but text-based swiping has reached its limit. To keep growing in a tired market, you have to change the experience or risk losing more users.

Also, continuity is key here. Hinge gets a steady leader as CEO. Match keeps control of the intellectual property, data, and a share in future projects. This way, the main business stays safe while they try something new.

Advice:

If you manage a product in a mature market, take note. Don’t wait until engagement drops. Start building your next idea while your current product is still strong. Make sure your operations and leadership team are prepared so you don’t hurt your main business as you try something new.

That’s it for this week.

If there’s one thing to take from these leadership changes, it’s that nothing at the top ever stays the same. Markets change, incentives change, and talented leaders go where they believe they can make a real impact.

The same goes for your team. If you want 2026 to be a better year, start now by thinking about the roles you need, the people you trust, and the gaps you can’t afford to bring into the first quarter.

If you’d like to talk through your hiring plans or team structure for next year, just reply and we’ll schedule a time.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

This week has been one of those busy Q4 stretches where everything seems to happen at once. I’ve been deep in end-of-year planning with clients, looking over 2026 hiring plans, restructuring teams, and making sure everyone heads into January with a plan instead of stress. Now, with Christmas coming up, I’m honestly looking forward to some family time, a bit of rest, and hopefully a break from my laptop.

This season always reminds me that founders often overlook the importance of momentum. Many believe the new year will fix everything, but really, your Q1 is shaped now, in December. The choices and preparation you make now set you up for either a strong or slow start.

This week’s stories follow that theme. Big changes are on the way next year. Founders who start planning now will be ready for what’s ahead.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. The Labor Market Is Cooling, but That’s Not the Real Story

Recap: The newest Fed Beige Book reports that hiring demand is dropping across the country. Companies are slowing down recruitment, using more freezes and attrition, and laying off more people than earlier this year. Entry-level jobs are hit hardest as AI takes over repetitive work, but it’s still tough to find people for specialized technical roles.

Most people see this as a warning, but I don’t. A slower market can actually help founders who hire with purpose. The real issue I see every year isn’t the economy—it’s timing. Leaders either rush to hire in November because “we need someone now,” or they stop everything until January and then wonder why hiring takes until Q2.

Neither approach helps you in the long run.

Great founders take a different approach. They use the next 6 to 8 weeks to plan the team structure they want for Q1. They clearly define the role, outline responsibilities, set the budget, and make sure everyone knows what “success” means before starting the search for candidates.

A slower market doesn’t mean you need to hire right away. It means now is the time to plan.

Advice:

Don’t hurry to make a hire just to finish the year, and don’t put everything off until January. Use the rest of Q4 to create your hiring plan, so when Q1 begins, you’re ahead of other founders who waited.

2. California Just Drew a Line on AI Hiring

Recap: California has moved forward with strict new rules that would make employers audit their AI hiring tools, tell candidates when automated systems are used, and show that these tools are not causing bias. Companies would need to track results, document their decisions, and explain rejections to candidates. In effect, AI hiring would be treated like a regulated product. While not every state will follow, California’s actions often set the standard for the rest of the country.

California is known for regulating early and figuring out the details later. I doubt we’ll see rules this strict everywhere, but the message is clear: if you use automated hiring tools, regulators will soon want to know how they work.

Honestly, the simplest way to stay compliant is not to hand off your recruiting to AI at all. The best candidates usually aren’t applying on your website. They’re busy working and not taking chatbot assessments late at night. It’s the passive candidates who make big moves, change teams, and help shape your company’s future.

AI can help sort through résumés, but it can’t replace the effort of reaching out to people, building trust, understanding what drives them, and persuading top talent to join your team.

Many founders overlook this gap. This is the kind of work my team does every day throughout Latin America.

Advice:

If you want to stay ahead of new rules and improve your hiring, move away from automated funnels. Focus on a people-driven recruiting approach that reaches those who aren’t actively applying. This method is naturally compliant and much more effective.

3. Netflix and Warner Want to Sell You One More Bundle

Recap: Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery are looking into offering a streaming bundle to reduce customer turnover and steady their revenue. After years of people getting tired of too many subscriptions, the plan is straightforward: instead of paying for several separate apps, users can get them together for a small discount. This approach is similar to what cable companies used to do and shows just how much strain the subscription model is facing.

This is a B2C story, but founders building SaaS should pay attention. Subscription fatigue is real. When consumers feel nickel-and-dimed, it spreads into their expectations at work too. People are tired of paying for ten different tools that all claim to be “critical,” only to use half of them once a quarter.

Netflix’s decision to bundle is not about innovation—it’s about staying in business. Even the biggest companies now realize that customers are fed up with too many separate subscriptions and want things to be simpler. This should be a clear signal to SaaS companies that adding more features isn’t enough; people want real, combined value.

The days of adding ‘just one more $20-a-month tool’ are ending. Customers now want fewer vendors, better integrations, and products that clearly earn their spot—without constant reminders or sales calls.

Advice:

If you’re creating SaaS in 2026, focus on bringing things together, not splitting them apart. Make your product essential, or join a bundle where your value stands out. The companies that help cut down on subscription overload will come out ahead.

That’s it for this week.

If you’re planning your 2026 team, your organization’s structure, or your talent strategy, now is the right time to get started. Q4 is when top performers set themselves apart.

If you want help figuring out who to hire, where to hire, and how to build a team that can deliver next year, I’m available to talk.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

Things have been busy for me lately. Many founders are finishing up their 2025 plans, and I’ve spent the last two weeks on strategy calls, fixing hiring plans, and helping teams get organized before December. It’s the typical Q4 rush. As the year ends, everyone realizes they can’t carry old problems into January.

I’m looking forward to a slower day tomorrow. Thanksgiving is my time to reset—some family time, a chance to relax, and then it’s back to planning.

If you want help with your 2026 talent strategy, I have some openings again. Just reply and we can set something up.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Sacks vs. State AI Laws: What Really Matters

Recap: A leaked memo showed that David Sacks wanted an executive order to stop states from regulating AI and give all control to the federal government, where he could have more influence. The order didn’t go through, but it still raised concerns in Sacramento and DC.

Most people focused on the personalities involved, like Sacks, Newsom, and OpenAI, but that only matters if it changes how founders build. This wasn’t really a scandal. It was a power move by a wealthy investor trying to make things easier for his own investments.

The main problem is execution risk. If you’re working in AI, you should expect regulations to change every few months. California will have one approach, Texas another, and DC a third. This isn’t just background noise—it’s the reality you have to work with.

The biggest mistake founders make is waiting for ‘regulatory clarity.’ That clarity will never come. People with connections will always try to influence the rules for their own benefit. Everyone else needs to build systems that can handle ongoing changes.

Advice:

Expect frequent changes. Move fast, follow the rules, and don’t assume things will be fair. Success comes from earning users’ trust and having a team that can adapt faster than the rules change.

2. HP Is Cutting 6,000 Jobs. Should You Care?

Recap: HP plans to cut 4,000 to 6,000 jobs by 2028, saying the move is about making operations more efficient with AI and cutting costs for the long term. They want to automate internal tasks and save almost $1 billion in the next few years.

Large companies can make these changes because they have the resources to do it. They have IT teams to build the systems, money to buy the right tools, and processes to change how things work. When HP says “AI will replace these roles,” they mean it. They really can build the technology to take over these jobs.

Most startups can’t do this, and small teams definitely can’t. Trying to copy these big-company moves can hurt your team. If your business is working well and your people are doing a good job, you don’t need to follow a plan made for a company with 50,000 employees.

If you want your business to run better, don’t just fire the person doing the job. Instead, look for someone who can do it much better. If that person costs too much in the US, try looking in places where top talent is more affordable.

Advice:

Don’t make decisions based on what big companies do. Focus on what’s happening in your own business.

3. Where investors are putting their money in late 2025

Recap: Last week’s global funding roundup shows investors are still putting big money into AI infrastructure, automation, and vertical SaaS. Examples include accounting tools like Numeric, humanoid robotics from Flexion, AI legal operations with Norm AI, creator economy platforms like Agentio, and startups focused on agtech and fashion supply chains.

Looking at the bigger picture, a clear pattern emerges. Investors are backing products that are either core infrastructure or closely tied to revenue. They want tools that help companies work faster, replace slow manual tasks in important workflows, or serve a specific industry where buyers can see real savings or earnings. “AI for vibes” is no longer getting funded.

For founders in Latin America or nearby, this is a key signal. While many investments are happening in other regions, these trends matter everywhere. If you’re building a startup, consider your role.

Are you just a nice-to-have app, or are you part of payments, accounting, logistics, or the creative process? Your place in the stack is more important than ever.

Advice:

If you want investors to notice you in 2026, focus on areas where money moves or where work is especially hard. Choose a specific industry, go deep, and solve one costly problem so well that your value is clear on a P&L, not just in your pitch.

That’s it for this week.

If you’re planning out your 2026 team, don’t wait for January like everyone else. The founders who win next year are already making decisions now.

And if you want to pressure-test your hiring plan or rethink how you’re using global talent, I’ve opened a few slots next week. Grab one and we’ll walk through it together.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

I just got back from a few days in San Francisco. The weather was nice, I played some golf, and had some great conversations. I met with clients, caught up with founders I hadn’t seen in a while, and had one of those weeks that reminds me how important it is to meet face-to-face.

Trips like this always help me get a fresh perspective. Stepping out of your routine, talking with smart people, and hearing how other teams are planning for next year can inspire you to come back ready to make changes.

Now that I’m back and settled, I have some open time on my calendar. If you’d like to talk about your hiring plan for 2026 or review any gaps in your current team, just let me know. Planning ahead in Q4 is always best, before things get busy in January.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. The Entry-Level Collapse No One Wants to Admit

Recap: New data shows entry-level white-collar jobs in the U.S. are basically disappearing. Only 30 per cent of recent grads landed a job in their field. Entry-level job postings are down 35 per cent. Tech hiring for juniors has fallen by more than 50 per cent since 2019. The main reason is simple: AI now handles many of the tasks that junior employees used to do.

If you’re a young professional looking for your first job, I understand this feels unfair. You worked hard and did everything you were told, but now the path you expected is disappearing.

But here’s the tough truth. When the usual path is gone, your network becomes your way forward.

Networking has always mattered, but now it’s crucial. If companies aren’t posting junior jobs, trust is your ticket in. You need someone to recommend you, share your résumé with the right person, or give you a shot when the usual system won’t.

For founders, there’s another side to this: the slowdown in entry-level hiring is an opportunity. Many talented and motivated people are searching for a break. If you invest in training junior employees, you’ll gain loyalty, fast learners, and appreciation that senior hires might not give. But you have to make this a deliberate choice.

Advice:

If you’re beginning your career, put your energy into building your network. It matters now more than ever. Connect with people, ask questions, offer your help, and let others notice your hard work.

If you’re a founder, don’t just watch Big Tech’s hiring freeze from the sidelines. Use this moment to your advantage. Build your own talent pipeline. Train new people. Someone needs to shape the next generation of leaders—it could be you.

2. Chile’s AI Law Fight Is Really a Politics Story

Recap: Chile is about to pass one of the world’s toughest AI regulation packages. The bill sorts AI systems by risk, bans those it calls “unacceptable,” and sets fines as high as 1.5 million dollars. Big Tech is fighting back, saying the rules could slow investment just as Chile is becoming a regional data and infrastructure hub.

This debate is unfolding during a major political shift. The first round of Chile’s presidential election just took place, and the right-wing candidate is expected to win the runoff. If that happens, the country’s regulatory direction could change completely.

A new government would probably focus on attracting investment and encouraging tech growth. That means less regulation and more efforts to bring in capital. The message would shift to “bring your data centers here” instead of “build with guardrails first.”

If you’re considering entering Chile’s AI, fintech, or data infrastructure sectors and these new rules seem daunting, keep a close watch. The environment could change dramatically in the next few months.

This debate is bigger than just AI policy, but about which political vision will shape Chile’s tech growth over the next decade.

Advice:

If you’re planning to do business in Chile, stay flexible. Don’t overreact to the current bill, since the rules could change quickly if the government shifts. In Latin America, tech trends often follow political cycles. Smart founders keep their options open and act when the timing is right.

3. Brazil Is Becoming the Region’s Big Winner in the AI Shuffle

Recap: While Chile struggles with how to regulate AI, Brazil is taking a different approach. The U.S. and Brazil are quietly working together to boost tech cooperation in areas like AI infrastructure, data centers, and critical minerals. The U.S. is looking to limit China’s influence in the region. Brazil is focused on achieving ‘AI sovereignty,’ lowering computing costs, and using open-source models that are not fully dependent on foreign technology. And because Brazil runs on 90 percent renewable energy and has massive rare earth reserves, everyone suddenly wants to build their next-generation data centers there.

Brazil is acting like other ambitious economies during big global changes by welcoming investment rather than pushing it away. While Argentina is in the news for the OpenAI megaproject, Brazil is taking a slower, more steady approach by building a long-term strategic partnership.

Compare this to Chile. Chile is discussing bans, rules, fines, and risk categories. Brazil, on the other hand, is inviting companies to build there. This shows the difference between being cautious and aiming to win.

The timing works well for Brazil. The U.S. is looking for a regional partner. Lula wants investment that supports independence, not dependence. Companies want more affordable, eco-friendly computing. Founders want access to many skilled engineers who can build key infrastructure.

Chile will attract careful pilots. Brazil will attract the big checks.

Advice:

If you are working in AI, fintech, or cloud infrastructure, pay attention to Brazil. It is quickly becoming the main place for anyone looking to grow AI projects in Latin America. For founders, the main lesson is clear: when one market is slowed down by regulation, another opens up with new chances. Go where the momentum is.

That’s it for this week.

If you’re starting to plan your 2026 team, this is a great time to get moving. The founders who succeed are the ones who plan in focused bursts, not last-minute rushes. I have some open slots on my calendar and would be glad to share what I’m seeing in the market and help you build a strategy that works.

If you found this edition helpful, please share it with another founder who should start thinking about their team before the year is over.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

This week has been a bit surreal. People in Chicago shared photos of the northern lights, making it look more like Norway than the Midwest. Solar storms and purple skies were everywhere. And it’s only Wednesday.

I’m heading to San Francisco for some client meetings this week. And this got me thinking about how many founders wait until January to fix things they already know need attention. After years in this business, I can tell you: if your team needs work next year, start planning now.

Every Q4, I see the same thing happen. Leaders spot the problems: a role slowing down the team, a process that never scaled, or a product team stretched too thin. Then in January, those same leaders hurry to say they “need to hire fast.”

At that point, it’s already late.

The founders who will succeed next year are the ones who start planning before December. They look at what worked, what didn’t, where the gaps are, and where they need more support. They think carefully about resources, like what stays in the U.S., what moves nearshore, and where talent brings the best return. They involve their teams early, instead of surprising them with a finished plan in Q1.

That’s how you start strong instead of scrambling through the first quarter.

If you know something needs fixing, don’t wait for the new year. Start now. Look at your team structure, hiring plans, budget, and expectations. Clear thinking always beats January panic.

If you want help with any of this, just reach out. And if you’re in San Francisco this weekend, let’s meet for coffee.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. How Employers Are Reacting to the $100K Visa Fee

Recap: The U.S. just raised the cost of new H-1B visa applications from around $5,000 to $100,000. The goal is to get companies to hire more people locally. But in reality, universities, hospitals, and tech companies are concerned because this makes it much harder to bring in the specialized talent they’ve relied on before.

This only matters if you absolutely need someone physically in the U.S. And even then, you have to ask yourself if it’s worth lighting $100,000 on fire before that person even starts onboarding.

If a candidate wants to move for personal or professional reasons, that’s a separate situation. But if your main reason is just to get their skills, the numbers no longer add up. For the same cost, you could hire two or three top people to work remotely. They can start next month, instead of waiting a year or more for paperwork and legal processes.

Many people say this change will “protect American jobs.” That might look true on paper. In reality, it speeds up the move to global teams. When high-skill immigration becomes too expensive, companies don’t just hire Americans—they hire teams in other countries.

Founders are focused on getting products out the door, not on economic theories from Washington.

Advice:

Before you spend $100,000 on a visa fee, call me. I’ll help you map out a global hiring plan that gets you the talent you need without waiting a year or paying a policy premium. The world is full of exceptional people who don’t need a U.S. address to deliver results.

2. Layoffs Are Rising, But Don’t Panic

Recap: In October, layoffs hit their highest level in over 20 years. More than 153,000 U.S. workers lost their jobs, with about 31,000 of those cuts linked to AI adoption. Big Tech made the biggest cuts, followed by retail and logistics. While headlines call it “the AI purge,” most layoffs happened at companies that hired too quickly during the pandemic.

If you’re seeing these stories and worrying that you’re behind because you haven’t made layoffs, take a moment to relax. Most of these companies let go of extra staff they hired during the pandemic. Many brought on thousands of people for short-term demand, then kept that extra cost for years.

There’s something the headlines often miss: these large companies have the resources to build AI systems that really can replace jobs. They have in-house research teams, platform engineers, infrastructure teams, and huge budgets to add AI to every part of their business.

If your team is just 15 or 20 people, you don’t have those resources. You don’t have a team to build those systems, and you don’t need one.

If your business is profitable and runs well, your goal isn’t to copy Google. Your job is to keep delivering and stay in business. Most startups don’t succeed by automating everything. They succeed by hiring the right people who do important work.

AI hype is everywhere, and many founders are making mistakes because they’re worried. Don’t lay people off just because Apple did. If you need to use your payroll more efficiently, try hiring better people instead. One great engineer, product manager, or operator can do more than three average ones. And if you can’t afford that person in the U.S., look for talent in other countries.

Advice:

Don’t get distracted by all the talk about AI layoffs. Focus on getting the most out of your team. You don’t need to let go of half your staff to stay competitive. You just need one or two people who can make a real difference. If your budget is tight in the U.S., you can find excellent talent in Latin America who can help without raising your costs. If you want help planning that approach, I’m available.

3. North Korean Deepfakes Are Now Targeting Latin American Companies

Recap: A new investigation found that North Korean IT operatives are using AI voice filters, deepfake videos, and automated résumés to pretend to be foreign software engineers. This has been happening in the U.S. for years, but now it’s happening in Latin American companies too. For example, a crypto firm in Mexico recently caught two “candidates” whose lips didn’t match their words during a Zoom interview and who froze when asked a surprise question in Spanish. This isn’t just a story from a thriller movie. It’s happening much closer to home than most people realize.

We discussed this a few weeks ago, but things have changed. Now, Latin American companies are being targeted as well. Without strong security protocols, your team probably won’t catch these threats. Most hiring processes are rushed, and interviewers are often distracted. Many companies still think this is only a “U.S. problem,” but it isn’t.

Many teams I work with make hiring mistakes because they move too quickly. They skip structured interviews, second screeners, and identity checks. This creates the perfect situation for deepfake candidates to get hired.

It might be interesting to read about how someone can fake a human face in real time. But it’s serious when these people get into your systems. They aren’t just looking for a paycheck. They want access to your code, infrastructure, customer data, and crypto wallets. Once they’re inside, the damage can grow quickly.

Advice:

Take your time. Train your interviewers. Include identity checks and ask unscripted questions. Try adding questions in Spanish or Portuguese to catch fakes. If someone seems “off,” trust your gut. If you want help building a strong vetting process for today’s challenges, get in touch. This isn’t just being paranoid. This is what hiring looks like today.

That’s it for this week.

If you want help planning next year’s team, or you just want to think it through with someone who does this every day, message me.

And if you are in San Francisco this weekend, let’s grab a coffee.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa

Subscribe now

Hey there,

It’s been a few weeks since the last edition. I meant to skip just one week, but then it became two, then three. I kept telling myself, “I’ll do it next week,” and before I knew it, a month had gone by.

The real reason is that we had the biggest client surge in Lupa’s history. I spent the past few weeks doing what makes us different: personally interviewing and onboarding new recruiters. On average, I did fifty interviews a week, spent hours training, and made sure every new team member met our high standards.

I’ve always believed our product is really about two things: our recruiters and the candidates they find. Everything else, like our brand, systems, and growth, depends on keeping our standards high. I’d rather move slowly than lower our expectations.

So there’s no dramatic reason for the break, just a lot of work that needed my full attention. I’m proud of where the team is now. And to everyone who reached out to ask if the newsletter was coming back, thank you. You reminded me why I started writing it.

Let’s get into it.

🌐 News Shortlist

1. Vammo’s $45M bet on the real EV revolution

Recap: Vammo, a Brazilian startup, has raised $45 million in Series B funding to grow its electric motorcycle network throughout Latin America. Ecosystem Integrity Fund led the round, joined by Qualcomm Ventures, Monashees, 2150, Construct Capital, Maniv Mobility, and Endeavor Catalyst.

This means a lot to us. Vammo has been our partner from the start, so seeing them reach this milestone is special. Jack Sarvary, who used to work at Rappi, and Billy Blaustein, who was at Tesla, saw early on that the EV revolution in Latin America would begin with motorcycles, not cars.

It’s couriers, riders, and everyday workers who really keep the region moving.

Since the beginning, we’ve helped Vammo find engineers and operators, and it’s been great to watch the team turn their vision into real infrastructure. This funding round is more than just money; it proves that world-class innovation can happen anywhere, not only in Silicon Valley.

Right now, some of the most important mobility breakthroughs are being built in Portuguese and Spanish, in cities that investors used to overlook.

Advice:

If you’re building something in Latin America, keep in mind that local challenges can become global opportunities. The world is watching now. When people look here, let them see excellence.

2. Pay transparency isn’t a risk. It’s a trust signal.

Recap: Massachusetts now requires companies with 25 or more employees to include salary ranges in every job posting. States like California, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota have similar rules. The goal is to close pay gaps and build trust. Because of this, founders should organize their pay systems earlier.

If you run a startup, you might worry about sharing pay ranges with competitors or having to explain them to your team. But this is only a concern if you rely on public job boards.

The best candidates usually aren’t checking job listings. They’re already doing great work at other companies. Most of your hires should come from actively searching for talent, not just from job postings.

Transparency laws don’t change this fact. Instead, they encourage companies to grow up faster. Pay is more than a number—it shows how much you value your people. Companies that explain this clearly will keep the talent others want.

Advice:

Don’t treat pay transparency as just another rule. Use it to market your company. Being open about pay builds trust, and trust helps you build strong teams.

3. The return-to-office isn’t a comeback. It’s a correction.

Recap: A recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that more companies are shifting back to office work. By 2026, 30% plan to require employees on-site five days a week, up from 28% now, and just 10% will allow full-time remote work. Hybrid setups are still common, but 13% of firms say they’ll add more required office days next year. Leaders say they’re making these changes because of culture, collaboration, and high real estate costs.

This isn’t surprising. Every few years, companies remember how expensive real estate is and start calling it “culture.” But this isn’t truly a return to the office. It’s a correction. The early remote years were messy. Managers struggled to adapt, systems didn’t work well, and many leaders confused being present with being productive.

Now, companies are bringing people back to the office, hoping that having everyone in person will fix problems that leadership couldn’t solve.

But here’s the thing: for international teams, being in the office doesn’t make you better. It just makes you local. The real efficiency comes from giving great people the freedom to work where they perform best. In Latin America, that flexibility isn’t just cultural—it’s strategic.

The same budget that hires an average performer in the U.S. can get you a top performer here, working your hours, aligned with your culture, and ready to deliver.

Advice:

Before you spend more money bringing people back to the office, ask yourself if the desks were ever the real problem. Great teams don’t need to be close together; they need a clear purpose.

🔎 Remote Jobs Shortlist

These are some of the new openings my clients have this week.

You might not be hiring right now, but checking out the roles top companies are posting can give you a sense of where things are headed. Take a look at the full list here.

1. Senior Product Manager

This team is building an AI-powered platform for creators—tools to help them monetize, grow, and manage rights, all at scale.

You’ll own the most strategic areas of the product: onboarding, subscriptions, insights, APIs, and more. Think fewer feature specs, more platform architecture. You’ll define systems, not just screens, and work directly with engineers, designers, and founders to ship fast.

You should have serious product instincts, AI-native thinking, and a track record of owning SaaS growth metrics. Bonus if you understand creators or have built for them before.

💵 $5,000 – $7,000 USD/month
📍 Brazil Remote

2. Risk & Portfolio Director

This fintech runs on risk done right—and they’re looking for someone to lead it all.

You’ll own portfolio strategy across Latin America: setting risk appetite, managing provisions, running ALCO, and building advanced models with a 30+ person team. You’ll work directly with the CFO and CEO, bridging finance, product, and regulation.

This role is for someone who sees risk as a growth lever, not just a safety net. If you’ve run credit risk, built teams, and know your way around Python and CNBV, this one’s for you.

💵 $8,000 – $10,000 USD/month
📍Mexico City Hybrid

3. Senior DevOps Engineer

This trading platform moves fast—and they need someone to keep things stable as they scale globally.

You’ll own the infrastructure: cloud ops, CI/CD, monitoring, and reliability during New York market hours. It’s a fully remote team across LATAM, EMEA, and the U.S., and you’ll work closely with developers to deploy faster and smarter.

If you’ve managed Kubernetes, Terraform, and high-availability systems at scale (bonus if in fintech), and want serious ownership with great pay, this is your spot.

💵 $4,000 – $8,000 USD/month
📍LatAm Remote

That’s it for this week.

The rules are changing quickly, whether it’s about talent, regulations, or growth. The best teams stay prepared. They don’t wait for perfect conditions. Instead, they adapt, take action, and keep building.

Until next time,
Joseph Burns
CEO & Founder, Lupa