FIRE is a term that has gotten watered down so much in the last 10 years. It used to be the "work 80 hour weeks and spend nothing and retire at 35 in poverty".
I'm not sure of you're familiar with this blog, but did you ever read Extreme Early Retirement by (I think) Jakob? I stumbled upon the blog a decade ago (but haven't read it in years). He was relatively young and lived in a mobile home, somewhere in the southern/rural US. He said he spent only around $10K per year (so, based on the 4% rule, he was able to retire with an investment portfolio of only a few hundred thousand dollars).
If he found happiness with that approach, then good for him. And as much as I like inexpensive activities like hiking, reading, HFBoards, etc - I couldn't imagine living 40+ years in a trailer in the middle of nowhere, foregoing international travel, concerts, the occasional steak dinner, etc. There has to be some middle ground between working til you're 70 to pay for a big house & a lifetime of frivolous purchases, and Jakob's approach.
Most of the FIRE sub on reddit is just have two people working at tech companies and making an obscene amount of money for a short while before retiring or people planning on living in a tent eating ramen like you said. It's like thanks for the tips!
At least those are better than "windfall" stories. A young person trying to make plans for their future can (correctly) conclude that they have the potential to earn a high income going into tech. That gives them a (somewhat) actionable plan.
If someone got lucky trading crypto or stock options - that's much harder to replicate, and has much less informational value for a reader. (Or, similarly, someone who bought a bunch of properties Toronto/Vancouver 20+ years ago).
I nominate you to explain investment income and capital gains to the National Post so people will stop REEEEEing about something that only affects rich people. And even then only moves up eligibility dollars. People see 50% and 66% and think those are the rates lol.
The deck is stacked against working people so badly it is crazy and I don't think that the "investment dollars/gains are already post-tax" covers it.
Here's how I've always looked at it - it's true that investment income is taxed much more favourably (in Canada). I can either complain about it, or I can take steps that allow me to benefit from those rules (which apply to everyone).
That's why I'm skeptical about people who loudly protest about public companies being too profitable. (The current target is Loblaws - and for the record, I don't own any of their shares). If people are so resentful of the company's success - go out and buy some shares, and then you can also benefit from the opportunity.