I'm asking you the question because a statement like 50% of [population] is making a claim to some notion of what they expect society to look like

you introduced the benchmark "not being able to afford a 2 bedroom apartment at median wage", though I would expect a modern day society that makes any claim to be wealthy to be able to have above 50% of it's population to be able to support something like that as that would indicate they can support a small family

You're saying that's not a good benchmark, so I'm trying to understand:

1) Do you have a different benchmark?

2) Is your key complaint that being unable to own a 2 bedroom house doesn't mean that individual or family is in "abject poverty"? In which case fair, though I would ask what does mean abject poverty for you?

It seems like you're saying 2, but I want to be sure

Either the Western world allows people the financial and real estate resources to have children in the next 5 years or we're all fucked. The tail end of the boomers enters retirement in 10 years and while millennials can take care of the boomers, eventually we will need to be taken care of, and for that millennials need to have children now as long as we still can.

Because the American suburbia developers want some nice chunky profits. It isn't enough any more to sell glorified matchsticks and cardboard.