While you are correct to a degree, I don't think it's as big of a degree as you think. The British thought "services" could replace manufacturing, as did other major economic powers of the past. When they reached that stage, they were already fading. As are we.
To dredge up this topic, there was an interesting article in the WSJ yesterday. (Quoted below.)
I'm not an expert on productivity but IMHO the idea that in the United States services have low productivity growth and manufacturing have high productivity growth is either BS, or irrelevant.
If there really is a big gap in productivity growth between the two sectors, why aren't resources flowing from services to manufacturing?
Sorry; I guess you lost me here. I'm trying to figure out what your comment has to do with your quote of my comment, and I can't connect the dots. Help!