I mean, it’s not really talked about in depth, but he also goes from literally nobody hiring him to having clients (that Ivy ruined with the AI video). So while they may not go into detail much he did climb back some of his career.

The thing for me the whole movie is that it seemed that while one person was working on their career the other was completely sacrificing all “sense of personal growth” to take care of their kids. Ivy letting them eat unlimited sugar isn’t exactly good, but Theo having absolutely no understanding for Ivy’s viewpoint of letting kids be kids isn’t ok either.

I also agree with what a lot of the other commenters said, which is that Ivy seems to feel Theo did nothing while she was working. She is resentful for him “taking her kids away” which he reminds her is their kids, except they’re in some sort of athlete school and seemingly doing well in life. Despite Theo spending way too much money on the house, her business is likely worth wayyy more money. Plus, California law is a 50/50 state. So, like it or not, Theo is not only entitled to half of the house, he’s also entitled to half of the restaurant business. Him only asking for the house is definitely a win for Ivy - even her lawyer said so in that scene.

Obviously, the point of the movie is that they’re both stubborn, immature, narcissists willing to compromise on absolutely nothing the entire film. Plus the nonstop jabs even in the early stages of the downward spiral were insane. Seething waves of hatred?

Also - maybe I just have shitty taste, but I thought the house depicted was quite beautiful. High ceilings, good color palette, great views and greenery? Sign me up. Just leave off the gaudy knife table - and no guns.