As others have pointed out, OP definitely seems like a troll. But having basically grown up on the Internet, I can say that something that's been apart of every forum or community that I've joined, is an element of keeping up with (or down with) the Jones's.
For example, when I was a lot younger, I frequented a forum about the Disney Parks. There was this lady who become something of a celebrity for how she blogged about planning and executing her Disney Dream Wedding. Needless to say, it was a a really cool wedding, and she spared no detail when blogging about it. What florist they used, the photographer, which restaurants they ate at, etc. She made her wedding seem so cool and magical, that of course she got a bunch of people who wanted to do something similar. So she happily preached her gospel. Sharing her experiences and offering advice. Some people were loaded, like she was. Other people, not so much. But they worked themselves up into a froth on the idea of having this millionaire style wedding without realizing the obvious fact that it probably wasn't in the cards for them, as a middle or low income person.
This happens with PF too. But it's more pernicious because it seems like such a positive thing. How can frugality and a focus on fiscal responsibility be bad, after all? We even get militant about the fact that "the math works at every income level". But I think critical thinking reveals that this isn't for everyone. There are hard lower bounds to spending. And I think that for some people, giving up your peak earning years based on the assumption that you'll be happy on an absurdly low level of spending for the next 40, 50, 60 years is a bad idea.
Well yeah, we all know that retiring very early isn't for everyone.
I mean, even in this community, very very few people give up the bulk of their highest earning years. I read far more posters talk about retiring in their 50s and 60s than in their 40s.
There are a few prominent posters who retired in their 30s and 40s, but they're not nearly as common as those who will retire maybe 10ish years early, but just like the blogs, those impressive posters tend to be of note.
Just because the most notable and famous FIRE community members are the ones who retired young doesn't mean they're representative of the majority.
It's the same way that the weight loss world is flooded with images of people who've lost enormous amounts of weight bringing them from obese down to visible abs, but very few actually live that reality.
Do people frequently get sucked into unrealistic fantasies? Of course they do. That will always happen, whether it be retiring at 30 on a low(er) income, or getting fixated on a Disney wedding they can't afford, or the university kids I mentor who are certain that they're going to become cardio thoracic surgeons even though they have a mediocre GPA but they aced one bio assignment.
People frequently underestimate the challenges of lofty goals, and they paradoxically overestimate a lot of risks. It's all really quite fascinating.
However, none of that takes away from the basic principles that less wasteful spending results in more financial freedom and more free time. That's inarguable.
Also, whenever someone invokes frugality among the poor as a given, I admit that I jump to the assumption that they haven't actually spent much time with poor people. I apologize if I'm wrong in this case.
I've spent my entire life around poor people, and the bigger problem is the inability to afford the basics of a safe and healthy life no matter how frugal they are. It's the inability to afford the desperately needed root canal, or the heat treatment for the bed bugs in their apartment, or the repair for their old car. I'm close to a number of people who own/have owned working class bars...their entire livelihood depends on people who have just enough cash flow to afford their services and not much else.
That's why it's important to be clear as to what we're talking about. If talking about people who struggle to sustain the basics of life, then yeah, discussion of frugality as a means to health and safety is not just unrealistic, it's utterly offensive.
However, if we're discussing "low income" within the paradigm of people who are able to sustain a safe and healthy lifestyle with some degree of margin, then yeah, retiring 30 years early may not result in the kind of lifestyle trade off they're willing to make. However, being mindfully careful about their spending may allow them to retire a solid 5 years early, or allow them to downshift at some point, which is no small feat.
I agree with you though, what all higher earners need to avoid is some bullshit self-indulgent nonsense attitude that because it's easy for us to make massive lifestyle trade offs that it's easy for everyone.
Every day at work I tell people that they need to spend $500-5000 to solve an unexpected problem that has a fair degree of urgency. Every day I see how that news affects different people so very differently. Every day I'm reminded of the level of privilege that comes with my high income because for me, that would be an annoyance, but for many, it's bone chillingly terrifying and utterly defeating.