I would sum it up as counterintuitively "Because they can't afford not to have kids." Urbanization is certainly a factor in how affordable kids are as in rural contexts they essentially paid for themselves via farm labor.
In the world wide context of rich vs poor in the third world it is often the case that your children are your social security. This may also be culturally enshrined as a literal legal duty for offspring to care for their parents no matter how alienated they were.
It would be technically accurate yet misleading to say Social Security and pensions are anti-family. Ensuring care in old age regardless of savings or offspring ability to provide undermines the obligatory support network role. Of course modern perception of family has evolved in the same sense that marriage is seen more about love instead of an economic transaction.
And that is before any conscious or subconscious k/R strategy. Essentially "elites" are incentivized to get the "best" heirs and dedicate more resources to them. Those struggling and incentivized to reproduce enough to have some survive and be successful.
In the world wide context of rich vs poor in the third world it is often the case that your children are your social security. This may also be culturally enshrined as a literal legal duty for offspring to care for their parents no matter how alienated they were.
It would be technically accurate yet misleading to say Social Security and pensions are anti-family. Ensuring care in old age regardless of savings or offspring ability to provide undermines the obligatory support network role. Of course modern perception of family has evolved in the same sense that marriage is seen more about love instead of an economic transaction.
And that is before any conscious or subconscious k/R strategy. Essentially "elites" are incentivized to get the "best" heirs and dedicate more resources to them. Those struggling and incentivized to reproduce enough to have some survive and be successful.