Yeah. That's what "The Man" wants you to believe in.
Back in the day, people used to be largely self-sufficient, filling their time with tasks for themselves (farming, weaving, building things), profiting by selling the surplus or charging to do something they were good at, and using the money to buy the things they needed.
As you know, industrial revolution and large scale monoculture changed that. People would sweat all day, and because there was no time (or energy) left for anything else, they couldn't build anything for themselves, making employees heavily dependent on their jobs. That power player had two important effects: because the employer has the upper hand, it can command lower wages; in turn, those lower wages drive credit, creating an entire economy based on debt, which reinforces the importance of securing a job, again driving wages lower, in a feedback loop.
So, why that "find a job that you love" is utter bullshit then? Because, ultimately, every job is bad. Every job is an asymmetric negotiation where the employee exchanges his lifetime to a monetary reward that is, guaranteed, smaller than the value he adds. Not to say that it isn't useful, but is certainly a sub-optimal way of using oneself's limited time on earth.
"Passive income" strategy is the exact opposite of that, since the rewards are not bound to how much you can charge your hour, and more to how valuable your work is. Historically, that's how writers, artists, inventors and such have made money. Nowadays, though, the potential is enormous given the cost of automation and reproduction of creative work is ever decreasing.
If you stop and think, this is mind-blowing. Of course, Forbes doesn't want you to realize that.