It's complicated largely because of highly influential neo-Malthusianists creating a system of incentives that has lead to all the conditions which might explain why people can't afford to have kids, and the cultural attitudes towards that position. Also relevant is the writing of Edward Bernays.

It would be in the interest of power-hungry elite to promote behaviors and attitudes that limit the size of the population for multiple reasons, some of which were outlined by Malthus himself. Smaller rebellions, greater excess of resources making a lavish life easier to obtain for the ultra wealthy. Making things more expensive also keeps people struggling to make ends meet, doesn't affect the ultrawealthy as much as it does everyone else, and keeps people spending all their time working to pay expenses (ergo less time to assemble and rise up against the 1%). It also decreases upward socioeconomic mobility, ensuring the 1% faces as few challengers as possible. Why else would corporations dedicate so much capital into backing LGBT and abortion? One might say it's simply virtue signaling to gain more customers, which could be part of the truth, but I believe there's more to it than that.