Re-tooling workers between industries in more developed countries is much easier, because of a workforce that's expected to not just have a single skill or is trained/expected to support more than one.
Quality in the west also has potential for strength because of greater devolution to the production floor.
But I do have a problem with saying 'west' vs 'east', everyone can learn from each other. I have problems with assumptions of superiority. Could framing it as a question of learning and leadership be better?
> Quality in the west also has potential for strength because of greater devolution to the production floor.
What do you mean?
> But I do have a problem with saying 'west' vs 'east', everyone can learn from each other. I have problems with assumptions of superiority. Could framing it as a question of learning and leadership be better?
I think it's better put through the frame of negotiation. That's typically how the boundaries of any exchange internationally are set up to be fair and, depending on the goodwill between parties and their negotiating style, are mutually beneficial or mutually non-harmful.
"East" and "West" are also drastic simplifications which I'm sure you're aware of, but you don't get the evidential fodder for analyzing negotiation structures. This includes motives, positions, interests and personal players.
Like for example if I said "Eastern Europe versus Western Europe" I'd be conflating the interest of multiple countries and would be missing out on the history between Germany versus Russia (not a lot of goodwill), or Merkle versus Putin (maybe some goodwill due to her East German background?).
Quality in the west also has potential for strength because of greater devolution to the production floor.
But I do have a problem with saying 'west' vs 'east', everyone can learn from each other. I have problems with assumptions of superiority. Could framing it as a question of learning and leadership be better?