> Historically, they were better jobs due to a strong labor movement, but that movement has been largely destroyed.
This is a widely believed narrative, but not necessarily true. The competing narrative that better living and working conditions arise from better technology and cheaper energy is just as supported by the data. Perhaps even more so because it also explains the post-1971 decline.
This seems like a non sequitur to me. What does (general) better living and working conditions arising from better technology and cheaper energy have to do with which jobs are considered "good" and "bad"?
How does the explanation without labor power dynamics explain the post-1971 decline? Electricity is cheaper inflation adjusted than it was then, and technology has certainly progressed since 1971.
This is a widely believed narrative, but not necessarily true. The competing narrative that better living and working conditions arise from better technology and cheaper energy is just as supported by the data. Perhaps even more so because it also explains the post-1971 decline.