The argument that stuck out to me the most was #4. My logical brain latched on to this very easily as basically a reamortization/refinancing of expenses that would have paid out over time if the marriage lasted.

While this logically made sense to me, I don't know that the expenses would be captured accurately. I don't know that there are models or actuarial tables for predicting what a marriage could cost over time and refinance that down to a decade. Paying up front is a gross estimation of what things COULD cost in the future.

What if, in alternate-universe future of a happy marriage, the wage-earner suffered debilitating disability and income took a dive? Taking the up-front hit is inaccurate. I don't know how to express the argument I have in my head.

While I get how your piece makes the argument for child support, I feel that spousal support (SS) is more of a reaming. With SS, the claim for what constitutes 'the ideal lifestyle" is contrived and padded with unnecessary frivolities. Like the celebrity divorces where the spouse claims that $300K / mo is NEEDED to survive. Uh, no.

One of the saddest/lamest divorce pics:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beanie-baby-fever-in-1999_n_58af7d12e4b060480e0661fe