If a nation becomes "post-industrial" it passes through, or dodges, a phase of society predominated by a manufacturing based economy and moves on to a structure of society based on the provision of information, innovation, finance, and services.
......
Critiques
[edit] Neo-Logism
When historians and sociologists considered the revolution which followed the agricultural society they did not call it a "post-agricultural society". "Post-industrial society" signifies only a departure, not a positive description.[10][11]
One of the word's early users Ivan Illych prefigured this criticism and invented the word conviviality or the phrase convivial society, to stand as a positive description of his version of a post-industrial society.
[edit] Geographic Critique
A group of geographers (such as Allen Scott and Edward Soja) argue that industry remains at the center of the whole process of capitalist accumulation, with services not only becoming increasingly industrialized and automotized, but remaining highly dependent of industrial growth.
Other sociologists, such as Ed Soja (based on Henri Lefebvre), suggest that although industry is out side of a 'post-industrial' nation, we cannot not ignore its necessary sociological importance.
...Why do you people persist? Is it because the US is successful and protective of the right to profit, despite the fact that profiteering predate the US, that you feel compelled to point this out to minimize this accomplishment? If it is so easy to institutionalize that protection then why not the Chinese have done it? Where from this tendency to take from others the benefits of their labors and why the need to defend that seizure by the Chinese and European members here? Is that stereotyping too uncomfortable? 
