Here's the math:

Again, the MEDIAN home over the last 50 years went from being worth $20K to $168K.

S&P 500 went from $20K to $2.4 million.

So the question is how much free cash flow (in excess of maintenance, insurance, and property tax) would you need on average for the rental to be a better investment.

Well, the difference between $168K and $2.4 million is $2.2 million, so split over 50 years it's about $45,000 a year. That of course assumes none of the cash flow is reinvested. Once you start reinvesting it, the calculation is much too complex for Cougarboard.

If you're in a mortgage situation, then your $4K down payment is now $168K, whereas the $4K in the stock market is $475K, so the gap is $300K. Split over 50 years, that's $6K a year you would need in free cash flow over and above your mortgage payment and maintenance (although after 30 years you have no mortgage payment, so that helps a lot). Making $6K a year in free cash flow on a 1,400 square foot, probably 2 bed, 1 bath, no air conditioning 1968 home (the median home in 1968) isn't easy, but it's of course possible.

The question here isn't whether there's ANY home that has beaten the S&P 500 over the last 50 years - the question is has the MEDIAN home beaten it. The answer is no.