1000RMB per month is currently competitive with ASEAN wages like Vietnam, problem is lack of focus on interior development until recently. Coastal manufactures with 2000RMB wages were shifting to Vietnam due to lack of interior development and US tariffs. Push comes to shove, interior supply chain will be preferenced if policy pressure dictates holding on the domestic manufacturing. Won't stop foreign companies who wants to diversify supply chains though, but would also influence underlying economics of domestic companies moving.
As for work force, China has abundance of cheap labour that's still regionally competitive. Official CCP poverty definition (lower than world bank) is 250RMB/month. Incidentally why Xi's poverty alleviation by 2020 is a meme. There's still 600M Chinese who'll work for 250-1000RMB. That's still multiple medium sized countries worth of "close to nothing" tier labour, competitive from Bangladesh to Vietnam. Real problem is social disruption from outsourcing from coastal to interior provinces, China dealing with coastal rust belt is going to be interesting. Hence new duo circulation / domestic consumption strategy which may or may not pan out.
>unless they are using Uyghur labor
Vocational training covers many sectors not just textiles, and no report alleges these are cheap / unpaid positions, merely forced. Lowest wage for out of province contracts works out to be 2000RMB with state subsidies to companies. Obviously not sustainable for 600M+ Han, but can swing it for "only" 11M Uyghurs because underlying concern is security not cheap labour. I see it like TSA funding, it doesn't make economic sense on it's own, at best it stops a few attacks, at worst it's wasted security theatre. It's "cheap labour" in the sense that state provides subsidies for companies taking on Uyghur workers, but ultimately not sustainable or efficient use of resources. Frame another way, it's also similar to US agriculture industrial policy, subsidize farmers because it makes political sense foremost and some economic sense in that it provides domestic industries some protectionist barriers even though on net it's bad use of resources.
>Chinese ag
They're actually moving towards US style industrial farms for efficiency and improved food security. Rural collectives from land reform legacy is being phased out for some sort of share system with prospectvie big state Ag companies. Will definitely cause social disruption but also long overdue. IMO previous reluctance probably because land reform central to CCP origin story, pretty embarrassing that replacement for CCP core policy = more capitalism.