Highly automated robot factories are already pretty normal in the Western world, especially for new factories. It has led to some political controversy, though I mostly see it come up when a local government feels it wasted its money with subsidies when they didn't bring jobs: in Germany and France, a number of localities have been disappointed to find that they lured a new factory to town, but then that factory doesn't hire many locals. That leads to the question: if a factory doesn't bring jobs to town, is there a reason locals should still be positive towards it? (One possibility is if it brings tax revenues.)
My Google skills seem unable to dig up the story, but there was a piece in one of the major newspapers a few years ago about new factories in France, and how eerie/futuristic/empty they felt; you go onto the factory floor and it's just robots humming away, with a handful of technicians.
> That leads to the question: if a factory doesn't bring jobs to town, is there a reason locals should still be positive towards it?
If "positive" means "throw tax money at them" then no. But if "positive" means "not actively opposed" then why not?
Also, in this context, "no jobs" means "fewer jobs than an old world manual factory". Having a thriving community of factories, even if they are not piled high with "Modern Times" style workers is still very likely to be a very positive thing for a community. Advanced factories still need service, they need supplies and end products shipped to and from, they need said supplies to be made and most importantly, they need innovation which attract innovators which starts the cycle over again.
For "why not", I suppose it depends on whether the factory has any downsides. Traditionally they have some pros and some cons: they bring jobs and tax revenue and a thriving "stuff is happening" feeling to the local economy, but they can also bring things like odors, air and water pollution, noise, increased truck traffic, and possibly requirements for new infrastructure (e.g. wider roads). That's why new factories can run into opposition in a way that new Google offices don't.
I agree they bring some needs for service as well, but even that might be non-local. In the story I can't seem to find, that was (correctly or not) a complaint of the local government, that of the people the factory did employ, many weren't even locally based, but Parisians who worked remotely for a third-party servicing firm, and drove out to the factory only when needed.
Most of the grievances can be (and are) addressed by placing the factories in business zones that are placed near to transport links and a certain distance from residential zones.
Obviously I don't know the details of the story, but it sounds like it goes both ways: This local government is likely home to a lot of people that would commute to Paris. And as they attract more factories, eventually someone might see an opportunity to open a local services firm. After all, time spend driving out to the factories are wasted.
I recently had an errand in a business district near a major airport. As I cycled through, I enjoyed picking out the chain of supporting firms (airline, caterer, catering equipment, for one). Neither HAS to be near each other, but if practicality line up with opportunity, why not?
My Google skills seem unable to dig up the story, but there was a piece in one of the major newspapers a few years ago about new factories in France, and how eerie/futuristic/empty they felt; you go onto the factory floor and it's just robots humming away, with a handful of technicians.