Yeah, location plays a big deal, but let me put it another way as to why I think the savings rate is more important than the homeownership.
Person A: Puts 20% down (let's say...200k on a 1MM place?). Continues to plow 75% of their income into investments. Eventually FIREs, 5-7 years later, selling the house.
Person B: Decides to rent, thinking homeownership is a trap after reading this article. Spends everything they make. Maybe saves the token 5-10% society tells them they should. Can never retire, or maybe in their late 60s at best.
Obviously this isn't apples to apples, but we're not comparing someone saving 75% and buying to someone saving 75% and renting.. we're--in this example--comparing someone saving 75% versus the average person who doesn't save,
It's the saving part that matters, basically. Whether you buy a home at the beginning, or not, is much, MUCH less relevant. Sometimes it will set you a bit behind. Sometimes a bit ahead. Unless prices collapse, or shoot up, it shouldn't make much of a difference, but be mostly a wash. But that saving 75%? That'll make a huge difference.
So the click-baity title can be all like "oh look how they got rich not buying a home" but really it's "look how they got rich saving 75% of their income." That's the real workhorse here.