> It should be pointed out that, other than lawyer costs, divorce tends to be zero sum.

What? No. After a divorce, total costs across both parties go up because resources can no longer be shared: one party needs new housing, possibly a new car, possibly needs to get their own health insurance rather than being on the other's plan, etc. Not to mention both parties have to buy anew whatever goods (cookware, television, etc.) the other person got.

Even completely amicable divorce destroys a tremendous amount of wealth.

Which actually extends to multi-generation families (and roommate situations), and sometimes explains how they survive at all.

Cramming 4 working adults into a two bedroom house is a big efficiency increase. So the first thing a newly single person should be doing is looking for a roommate to share a tv and washing machine and 1/2 the cost of housing.

That said, I can't think of a single case where anyone I knew in their 30-50's who got divorced did anything but go out and buy their own personal house to live in by themselves.

> but don’t net destroy much value unless the parties are spiteful and deliberately destroy their own value.

I see this more often than one would expect. Most recently (older, but not senior, couple married for decades), one party did not agree with the other (amicable party offered 50/50, other party was spiteful), and ~$200k in value was destroyed through legal fees...to arrive at a 50/50 split.

Divorces can be amicable, but the frequency of this happening is not insignificant. Without a prenuptial agreement, you're rolling the dice. Do you feel lucky?

This is absolutely not true for middle class people. Having to divide up households is extremely expensive and even when no money changes hands it can destroy peoples' standard of living. I watched this happen in my own extended family in just the last few years.