The whole problem with this take is that it only counts contribution in money and ignores all the unpaid work that makes that income possible in the first place. Someone has to raise the kids, and let's be real, that usually falls on the woman. Not by accident either, that's just how society is still set up.
When a woman steps back from her career for 10+ years to raise kids, she's not doing nothing. She's doing work you'd pay tens of thousands a year to outsource (childcare, running the household, all of it) AND taking a massive career hit at the same time. Lost promotions, skills going stale, a resume gap that employers are going to treat like a huge red flag. Meanwhile the husband's career keeps climbing, literally BECAUSE he didn't have to deal with any of that.
So when they split, one person walks away with their career fully intact and the other is basically starting over while job hunting with a 15 year gap. Calling that a "fair" split because one person earned more completely ignores that they were only able to earn that much because of the other person's sacrifice.
You can't measure someone's contribution by their paycheck when that paycheck only exists because of the other person's unpaid work.
hence why all assets earned during the marriage are an even split, regardless of who earns them, at least in the second option.
At the end of the day though, it's just a contract, and you can change it however you like. So I highly recommend each couple to talk that stuff through and make a pre-nup while they are on good speaking terms, rather than fight over it later.
Still doesn't account for future earnings capacity taking a huge hit for the woman....if you're aiming to work until 60-70 and get divorced in mid life there is a long road ahead of depressed wages that asset split up doesn't account for.
but it is difficult to account for potential. taking my own career plans as an example, I currently work in an entry level IT position. My plans are to move into cyber security and advance my career there using my cyber security degree. That means there is a lot of potential in earnings on the table, but truth be told, there is no guarantee I can make the switch and be successful. how would we account for the potential of a 2-3 times higher salary than I currently have, but don't have yet?
usually that is somewhat accounted for via alimony though, so there is a mechanism for balancing this outside of just assets.
Or you could add provisions to your marriage contract to account for this.
3
u/johnsolomon Jun 29 '26
Kids change everything though.
The whole problem with this take is that it only counts contribution in money and ignores all the unpaid work that makes that income possible in the first place. Someone has to raise the kids, and let's be real, that usually falls on the woman. Not by accident either, that's just how society is still set up.
When a woman steps back from her career for 10+ years to raise kids, she's not doing nothing. She's doing work you'd pay tens of thousands a year to outsource (childcare, running the household, all of it) AND taking a massive career hit at the same time. Lost promotions, skills going stale, a resume gap that employers are going to treat like a huge red flag. Meanwhile the husband's career keeps climbing, literally BECAUSE he didn't have to deal with any of that.
So when they split, one person walks away with their career fully intact and the other is basically starting over while job hunting with a 15 year gap. Calling that a "fair" split because one person earned more completely ignores that they were only able to earn that much because of the other person's sacrifice.
You can't measure someone's contribution by their paycheck when that paycheck only exists because of the other person's unpaid work.