"It is impossible for a nation to maintain a strong manufacturing sector over a long period of time unless it has a lower standard of living than its trading partners."
As you are a Canadian (I assume), I'm absolutely SHOCKED that you have missed the example of the British Empire in this regard.
As Orwell once put it (paraphrased) "the health of the British dividend-drawer is dependant upon the sweating of Indian coolies". I would think that the British home islands (and Canada) have always had a much higher standard of living than, say, India and Burma (even today, long after they have been granted indpendance and that industrialization has become a world-wide phenomenon). Given that example, the standard of living of the typical (white) British subject had ALWAYS been greater than that of it's major trading partners during the height of the Empire.
This example would seem to turn that particular argument inside- out, no?
--"It is impossible for a nation to maintain a strong manufacturing sector over a long period of time unless it has a lower standard of living than its trading partners."--
Japan puts the lie to this theory. It has a living standard far higher than any of its neighbors, and yet its manufacturing sector is larger than any of its neighbors (even China IRRC).
You overlook one key point with regard to Great Britain that reinforces my point. When it had a higher standard of living than its trading partners (India, Burma, etc.), Britain was maintaining a huge trade deficit with those places.
How many people in Great Britain today work in primary (agriculture and mining, for example) and secondary (manufacturing and construction, for example) industries?