The linkage with the Romans is, I believe, a bit harder to make than the Brits.
The Romans ran into trouble—over hundreds of years—for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was their declining fertility and the inability to get Romans to procreate.
The Brits are managing, given the extent of their heavier social costs dragging on their economy.
But a valid point raised, nevertheless.
Valid because personal labor was lost to the Romans because they were rich enough to be a societal giver to the poor and less affluent because they could afford to give?
Or lost because they lost the true meaning of personal labor and sacrifice in giving via labor because of their affluence.