I think for people who are financially unstable (i.e. just starting out, heavy student loan debt, may move frequently, don't have a lot saved/invested overall), then they would probably be better off with the flexibility of renting. It's probably not a great idea to have your equity in the primary residence be more than half of your NW, which for some people, even after just putting in the down payment, may be the case.
For people who are financially stable (i.e. several years into career, low/no other debt, may stay for 4+ years OR the house would be cash flow positive as a rental, have solid savings and investments in retirement vehicles), then they may be better off buying as this will allow the home to be a hedge against both inflation (property will likely maintain value, though most of the big gains are probably gone) and rising rent over time. The leverage factor, low borrowing rates, and overall NW diversification will probably outweigh the marginal benefit of having more invested in the market.
For me, buying in 2012 was partially such a good deal because I was able to buy on a foreclosure ~$100k which has significantly appreciated, so even if I needed to get out of the property quickly I could do so without taking a loss (probably make a nice 30%+ gain). However, at today's price of $140k (Zillow), the reward would be considerably smaller, and it wouldn't be such an obvious choice to buy.
I think ignoring the housing crisis in '08-'12 where you could fairly easily get a home at a discount, the advantage for buying is reduced overall.