Are you under the impression that this new manufacturer will somehow capture the entire market?

Of course not. It’s a hypothetical that illustrates how many plants worth of vehicles we consume in some tangible manner.

Also my point is that the fixed cost other than R&D and administration is per plant, not per manufacturer. So given Ford’s example, a plant that makes 250K per year in Oakville is profitable assuming no other costs. I don’t know how much the rest of the costs would be. A back of the napkin of 3000 extra employees making 200K/yr each is $2.4K per vehicle at 250K vehicles per year. Can a lean manufacturer run on 3000 admin and R&D staff? Don’t know. But it doesn’t sound impossible. Slate Auto has 250 and they seem to have produced working prototypes.

But given that there’s Honda and Toyota made here, we probably won’t have to venture there either way.

As for looking at existing large manufacturers like Tesla, I don’t think they’re a good way to gauge how low of output is sustainable because these manufacturers aim to grow as large as possible and maximize profit. If they can spend $240 per vehicle in R&D and admin instead of $2.4K by growing to other markets, they will do exactly that. They don’t aim to satisfy a transportation need. They aim to create shareholder profit. So they’ll get to the $240 and they’ll give the remaining $2160 to their shareholders. The hypothetical firm that has a mandate to fulfill (or supplant) a country’s transportation needs instead of maximizing profit would not give that $2160 to the crown, and give it to its employees instead. Allowing it to have 3K of them with lower production output at the same price.

All hypothetical of course. Could be wrong. I’m just thinking here.