I would disagree that that is an example of generational warfare.
The older people get, the less of their money tends to be in actual stocks, and the shares managed by retirement funds are inevitably non-voting, so they can't even voice what tiny bit of opinion their fraction of ownership would theoretically get them.

The "shareholders" being performed for are the managers of those investment funds.
Making obscene wealth on stock investing is relatively rare, but making obscene wealth investing other people's money and then paying yourself an obscene salary out of the proceeds is far more common.
Those are the people who control the massive amounts of money that companies perform for to drive up share prices.

Why own when you can get paid to control? Then your money isn't on the line and you don't need to be lucky to get rich.

Market linked retirement funds, imo rank among one of the worst regressions in American governance/society.

It broke the employer:employee relationship where your work provides a pension, and you are secured in your old age for loyalty and time worked.

It directly enabled an emboldened a new group of parasites, who run hedge funds to gamble with other people’s money whilst skimming fees up and down the transaction flows. You win, I win - you loose, I win.

And those ‘smart people’ crash the economy every 10-15 years due to their collective greed and over leveraging in order to take the maximum profit they can - or society as a whole “lands softy” due to central banks fiscal policy via inflation, and we all see where that’s landed us.

In addition to what ricecake@sh.itjust.works said, this would be generational warfare against…themselves. Old people are exponentially more likely to need healthcare than young people are.