It's only a problem in the first place because of the unrealistic expectations capitalists have regarding economic growth.

The more sparse the labour force, the more expensive labour will be.

Therefore, could it not be beneficial for existing members of the labour force if the labour supply were to shrink? Obviously there are other moving parts like some jobs being replaced by LLMs (which are proving to be just as if not more expensive anyway).

My point is that the birth rate isn't actually that important to the average person (ie. Employees, not employers), capitalists would really like us to believe it is, though.