Nine women can already have babies in parallel. That is, nine women cannot have a baby in one month, but nine women can have nine babies in nine months.

14,000 women will produce a baby in a month, because that is how many, in average, it would take for one of them to be 8 months pregnant. Of course, if you need one tomorrow, you can go over to the maternity ward and steal someone's that was just delivered.

Moreover if you need 1 baby a month you can absolutely stagger your initial startup period to reliably produce 1 baby a month.

It would probably be more practical to make old age less expensive than to inject more people into the bottom of the demographic pyramid. Those young people eventually get old too. I am looking forward to my sentient robot caretaker:

“Open the refrigerator door, HAL”

“I can’t do that right now”

If he had saved enough money to subscribe to the Pro tier, HAL might have opened it.

Once we ditch our centrally controlled economies perhaps life can be affordable enough to not prevent willing parents from having children.

Oddly from your comment I can't quite tell which end of the political spectrum you're on. I think I agree with you, but I'm not sure until I know which team you're on.

I bet depending on the questions you ask me I could be on either side :)

Life has never been more affordable than it is now. Virtually all of your ancestors were impoverished to a degree you can't even imagine.

Life was becoming increasingly more affordable, but that stopped being the case years ago. It is now declining. I would like it to either stay the same as it was years ago or start increasing again.

Sure but it’s still more affordable than it was for the vast majority of our ancestors, and they still had kids, so it’s not an explanation for declining TFR in developed countries.

I think Brooks would call that an optimistic schedule estimate.