Any kind of retirement future is fundamentally built on the labour of the still-active workforce, and will be for as long as labour is still required in order to produce goods and services. That's just inherent to the concept of retirement itself, no matter how that retirement appears to be funded - those retired people still need to consume stuff that requires workers to produce and they're not working themselves by definition. Every single retiree is taking a cut of the labour productivity of those still working whilst not returning anything, whether that's funded via shareholdings in their pension plan or a state pension scheme or any other form of pension.

More subtly, in the current economy there are basically only two pots that higher real-terms wages for workers can come from: taking from other workers, and taking from the retired. That's because the whole economy has a supply-side crisis in basically everything and does not have the capacity to supply people overall with any more than they already have. All the usual scapegoats, like the super-wealthy, just don't consume enough as a proportion of the global economy that redistributing from them would have an impact on ordinary people. (Often articles attempt to confuse people about this by using definitions of wealthy that include like a third of the US population, or by comparing net worth instead and tricking people into thinking it means consumption by ordinary people could be increased by that amount if it was redistributed.)