Are you including retirees, who paid into the system?
I can't imagine many people being capable of retiring that way these days; jobs that offer good salaries and pensions hardly exist (mostly in the government), and it's likely social security won't be there for us. I hope I'm wrong on the latter, but it's hard to live on Social Security alone even today.
I wonder how free they feel.
I think these two phrases will have to be expanded upon - what do you consider "not hard work", and "living well"?
"Not hard work": a few hours a day at most, but with complete freedom, e.g. take the day off (sort of) whenever you want / have the possibility to go sit in a cafe or meet up with friends, etc. A life without too much professional stress.
"Living well": An (after tax) income of $100 - 150k a year, in a low(er) cost of living area (e.g. not SF or London). Add some for higher CoL cities.
I would paint you as the exception, not the rule. You had the right knowledge, the right skillset, and the right contacts to get you a job 99.9% of the current workforce would kill to have. Not because they are too stupid to do the same things you do, but because they weren't as lucky as you.
You can't tell people that "you reap what you sow" if they're seeing other people sowing a huge amount and actually reaping very little.
To anyone who might reply to suggest this means the reward for not working should be even lower, read The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich von Hayek first. He made a very good case that there's a necessity for decent welfare in modern societies because without it poor people will eventually rise up in a bloody revolution. It's happened many times in the past. Lowering welfare is, by logical extension, an argument in favour of murdering the wealthy.
By most metrics my life is pretty good given I live a relatively free life without significant stress and plenty of money (not FU money, but I do alright). It also shows that you don't need to work hard to actually achieve something, and can still live well.