I don't want to give this author attention but ..
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-problem-with-the-fire-movement-2019-02-07I'm no expert on online publishing but it feels like websites like dev, medium, marketwatch pay by the click. So they pump out articles at a quick pace that I would give a C for in my classes: spelling issues, grammatical errors, and awkward paragraph construction leaving the reader with a jumbled, incoherent thesis. Thankfully this mentioned article only hits this last criticism.
You can read the article, but if I understand the gist right, it's this:-The concept of retiring early is appealing. -Most people don't have enough saved to retire early. -So they can't retire early -And the FIRE movement is to blame because it encourages people to retire early. -As an added bonus, FIRE is only for the elite and quasi-genetic ('Can you make an NBA team?!')
The conceptualization of this 'problem' is either very naive and/or ignorant thinking. Alternatively, willfully deceptive if the author knows anything the FIRE movement (mention of the 4% rule suggests they do). There is a a huge failure to follow through on this line of thinking (One for example, FIRE says you have to save alot and amass enough money to pull the trigger. If someone can't get close to FI and they are following FIRE principles, why would the article expect them to RE?). It also has a fatalistic tone- What is the solution to fixing retirement if FIRE is a poor concept? This reminds me of Suze Orman's position which states that retiring early is risky so one should reduce expenses (check!), save greater amounts of income (check!), make more (check!), minimize downside by not engaging in risky financial behaviors (check!). Really all these 'gurus' have more or less the same strategy (adjust spending/saving) but different tactics (usually, in response to perceived risk. For the most part Suze is actually on board with FI but thinks RE is too risky).
I got clickbaited.. I was hoping for a meaningful discussion about the pitfalls with FIRE. Ironically, I have only heard criticism from
within the movement (is risk properly accounted for, how to ensure happiness in retirement, ideal SWD in a changing economy, etc), which I really appreciate because the discussion moves from problem identification towards solutions and mitigation.