Because if both are at home working, well, you can have some couple time (also called "sex") during lunch break or at any given moment when there are no meetings etc.
Deciding whether to have a child seems much less about finding the time for sex, than about thinking you have the time and resources for actually raising the child that you would have. The actual act is a rounding error in the time requirement.
IF both are very fertile, sure. Otherwise, it can take a while, months probably. There are just 2-3 days a month when the woman is peak fertile. So, just the mere physical presence can boost possibilities.
I disagree. It is completely irrelevant if you can "afford" raising a child. Your children are not gonna die because you "can't afford" them in ANY western democracy once you have them.
Actual affordability of children has zero direct effect on fertility, the only thing that really matters here is "perceived affordability" (=> and by implication, effect on lifestyle)!
So if you can "trick" people into having more sex, then expecting higher fertility is quite reasonable, while decreasing the monetary cost of raising kids might not really help much at all.
I don't think anyone is denying that here. What we are saying is that, all the other parameters equals, being together more time gives you more time and chances to have sex and get pregnant.
I'm pretty sure it also increases in some couples the chances of potentially deal-breaking conflicts, but that's another topic...
And… that’s just not how the time factor actually works. If wife and husband are home during her most fertile time window in a cycle, she will instinctively “find him” for some magic moments that may not be particularly planned or even romantic, rather more characterized by a delightful and clumsy urgency.
> If wife and husband are home during her most fertile time window in a cycle, she will instinctively “find him” [...]
Have you known many couples who had trouble trying to conceive? There's a reason fertility monitoring strips, apps, etc. are such a huge market, and it's not because people are trying to avoid pregnancy.
> [...] for some magic moments that may not be particularly planned or even romantic, rather more characterized by a delightful and clumsy urgency.
I guarantee that if you interviewed couples who had been unsuccessfully trying to conceive for a long time a large number of them would strongly disagree with using "delightful" to describe the urgency of sex during the fertility window.
Don’t misunderstand the situation to which I’m narrowly referring:
Man available to the woman effectively around the clock every day, setting majority of the time is private and comfortable enough that sex can just happen, in compressed and sometimes exciting timeframe, i.e. even if busy with WFH and childcare.
I am aware of couples who struggled or are struggling with fertility, and using the various tools and techniques to increase the odds. I am not discounting their experiences and hardships. I am saying that, on average, if more couples of child bearing age are sexually accessible to one another effectively 24/7, then there are natural instincts that can and do play a role in them coming together sexually at the critical time for conceiving a child, and so more children would be conceived.