Interesting! So it is sort of like I expected. I just have a hard time justifying delaying full fledged savings to put it into something like a house. Starting at age 30 it would take us 3 years to save that while saving 401k minimum. Meaning we wouldn't get to start aggressive savings until 33/34 depending on renovations needed. Makes me not want to buy and continue renting even though I would love the consistency and "lower" payment of a house.
I'm not following your distinction or dilemma here. I mean, you should definitely continue to take advantage of all the benefits of contributing to a 401k, but after that I don't see any real difference between saving for a house down payment or saving for something else (like ER).
Here's my fictitious example, with lots of hand waving so I don't have to get into the "is it better to invest in stocks or real estate" debate:
Scenario A: You invest $60k in stocks. Nine years later, after 8% nominal returns, your money doubles to $120k.
Scenario B: You "invest" $60k as a down payment on a house that costs $300k. Nine years later, at a very modest 3% average appreciation, you sell your house for $390k, for a profit of $90k. After transaction costs (realtor commission, taxes, etc.) your $60k investment has turned into $130k. And of course you will also recover 9 years of principal payments.
Now with all my hand waving, I've shown Scenario B to be slightly better than Scenario A, but that's not the point. The point is that once you've acquired the money for a potential down payment, whether you "let it ride" in whatever investment got you there, or transfer that money into a down payment, it really doesn't matter (besides all the other obvious differences of real estate vs. paper assets).
You should definitely go through the rent vs. buy exercise and factor your own desires into the decision, but I don't understand how buying a house is somehow "delaying full fledged savings." Could you please elaborate?