On one hand wealth is being pooled into a smaller number of people, on the other it's becoming difficult to have anyone invested in working harder - and for good reason, as there's little payoff in that.
And even the wealthiest families would still lose kids. In 1924 the 16 year old son of the President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge Jr, went out to play tennis against his brother. But he forgot to put on his socks. He got a blister, it popped, got infected, and he died. That was the world that humans lived in just a century ago, even the most powerful could expect to lose children before adulthood. And so they needed large families to ensure that some of them made it.
With their reproductive organs more likely.
There isn't really a final word on the topic I'm aware of, but it looks like all the options available are out-competing having children rather than that people are avoiding families as some sort of revolt. People aren't generally willing to have kids if it means abandoning their efforts to achieve the most comfortable modern lifestyle that they can.
That's mostly because for most of history, they didn't have much control over it.
Contraception and basic sexual education changed all that, as evidenced by the sharp decrease in teen pregnancies.
> People aren't generally willing to have kids if it means abandoning their efforts to achieve the most comfortable modern lifestyle that they can.
That's a minority opinion.
Around 12% of the (US) population actually pursues this, in their view, comfortable lifestyle. The rest consistently indicates either same or a larger number of desired children than they have:
https://populationconnection.org/blog/survey-americans-want-...
This is basic economic revealed preferences. These people have all achieved the best living standard (and for the least effort) of anyone in the history of their genetic lineage measuring from before humans were a species.
They may say they want more children, but they are not willing to compromise away any of their comforts to actually have more children. Nothing is stopping them except their own preferences. Literally all their ancestors managed to have children in much worse conditions.
The highest estimate of jobs long term removed by automation that I've seen is around 200 million.
The current labour shortage just in China is already around half of that.
Layoffs in tech notwithstanding, we're still in a period of labour shortages and increased efforts at automation are a reaction to it.
And then the elite says, well lets import excess population from the third world. An idea unthinkable in the past, but now we are modern and not racist.
The core question seems to be whether the economic systems and fiat currencies can survive the next century. Population decline and a shrinking economy should go hand in hand... but planning contractions does not seem to be priority...
Usually, it was a tiny elite, but nowadays, in the time of heavy pension systems, we might actually have succeeded in building an untenable system for a massive part of the population.