This is a late response.
> But couldn't the rise of the service economy itself be PARTIALLY
responsible
> for the post '73 decline in real wages, since service jobs on average pay
> less than manufacturing jobs? Perhaps this is just part of the 'leftist
> mythology' which you are assailing, but the "common sense" scenario many
> people use to explain the decline in wages is that workers who might have
> been able to make a living wage in the manufacturing sector during the
> "Golden Age" were now forced to take crappy $6/hour service sector jobs.
> Are you saying this has NO baring on wages during the 73-94 period?
The sectoral shifts in American employment might have some bearing on current wages, historically speaking, but, as I think Doug mentioned, econometrically speaking, international trade can explain only a certain amount of wage supression--that is, it can only account for a certain amount of the shift to "services." (Put another way: the idea that manufacturers pick up shop and move to China because of cheap labor isn't quite right: China is not by a long shot the place to find the cheapest labor or the most business friendly atmosphere. Lots of other things go into this decision, even if labor is cheaper there than the U.S.) We should remember that the U.S. has always had a large service sector--it didn't spring up in the 1970's. In 1947, roughly 34% of full-time workers were in goods-producing industries; almost 55% were in service sector jobs. In 1979, those numbers were roughly 29% and 68%; in 1996, 21% and 76.6%. During this time, the %age of workers in FIRE (finance insurance and real estate) has almost doubled, and general services have more than doubled. Obviously, some of the wage decline is associated with this shift, but, statistically speaking, the "shift" to "services" began long before the 1970's--indeed, it began with the golden age itself , just as the shift away from agricultural employment did--even if the trend accelerated then, for lots of reasons.
So, in response to your question, I think that focusing on the sectoral shift is a distraction from other more important reasons for wage suppression b/w 1973-94, or more complex ones. And yeah, that means that the "golden age" paradigm is both a bit distorted and a bit more exceptional than once thought.
All best,
Christian