You may feel that the Rogue is superior without magical augment, and I have stated that I disagree. You stated that the Wizard would have to expend significant resources to best the Rogue in stealth, I have stated why I disagree. To re-iterate, an Invisible Wizard or even Pig-farmer Joe, will have a significant advantage over even Mr. Sneaky Pete the Rogue. See Invisibility or any counter spell effect now forces the opponent to expend their resources. A 50% miss chance (assuming you could locate the correct location) is pretty significant versus, say, 0%.
Eliminating long term effects was not something I am opposed to, at least not entirely, it's the action economy I feel is ill conceived and lends itself to exploitation. If you feel that a 2nd level spell cast within a round that lasts all day is a fair effect, then I will respectfully decline further discussion on this point, since neither of us will reach a consensus. Examples of "you can still be heard", or "they can still hit you half the time", do not lend argument to how these potent spells, coupled with a long duration, with relatively little investment in action economy, do not out-compete their mundane counterparts, or at the very least provide a significant advantage.
You can disagree until you are blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact that the Invisibility is not superior and that the Wizard isn't a superior rogue than the rogue is.
Can you have a roguish wizard? Of course you can but claiming a Wizard will make a rogue useless is simply not fact.