I can buy 2[1], but what's your evidence for 1? I mean, look at the decline in U.S. agriculture jobs over the past century in inverse proportion to agricultural output.

Sure, China employs a lot of manpower to perform the kind of manufacturing that in more developed economies was automated long ago, and that's profitable for them (for the moment). But that's not in the guise of any "make work" scheme, it's because it's the cheapest thing they can do at their current phase of industrial development.

[1] Even this claim is a little suspect. I have heard that in places like France and Japan, the political pressure for stable, high-wage jobs at the exclusion of others has led to fairly inefficient automation to avoid the subsequent risk and expense of hiring.

> I can buy 2[1], but what's your evidence for 1? I mean, look at the decline in U.S. agriculture jobs over the past century in inverse proportion to agricultural output.

Machinery, automation, and corporate food production has a lot to do with why people work less on farms. However, overwhelmingly agriculture in the US uses migrant labor that is often paid very little wage when workers are needed.

What under-bidding means is: offering a cheaper price (in this case by accepting third-world wages). In other words, humans are working for less money than it would cost to automate. This will become less successful as the cost to automate goes down and automation tech gets more capable.