>>520877551
>>520877783
The situation in the year 1988:
Approx. replacement or above (≈2.1+)
>Albania
>Turkey
>Cyprus
>Iceland
>Ireland
>Poland
>Romania
>Yugoslavia
>Soviet Union

Below replacement, but feasible recovery (roughly 1.7–2.0)
>France
>United Kingdom
>Norway
>Sweden
>Finland
>Greece
>Bulgaria
>Hungary
>Czechoslovakia

Below replacement, harder recovery (≈1.6 and under)
>Portugal
>Spain
>Belgium
>Netherlands
>Luxembourg
>Denmark
>West Germany (FRG)
>East Germany (GDR)
>Switzerland
>Austria
>Italy
>Malta

In industrial countries, keeping birth rates around 2.1+ basically means making it easy and normal to have 2–3 kids without wrecking your life, and you can see this in how France and the Nordics had a mini baby boom in the 1980s–90s after they expanded family policy. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark pushed a dual-earner model with universal childcare, long paid parental leave (including for fathers), and school/working hours that actually fit together, while France combined strong child allowances, family-friendly taxes, and dense childcare/preschool so women didn’t have to choose between work and kids; this nudged many couples toward a second and often a third child. By contrast, countries like Italy, Spain, and Germany combined modern female education with old-school home expectations, tight housing, rigid work, and weak childcare—so fertility collapsed instead of stabilizing near replacement, even though with earlier Nordic/France-style policies many of them could probably have hovered much closer to that 2.1 level.

>>18133312
>oy vey how dare you have replacement rate White birthrates in 1988? Shut it down with me fellow boomergoys.

>>513062943
I thought it was his tongue sticking out...

Pic unrelated