Perhaps you should consider that maybe some of those shareholders are your parents whose retirement future depends on those investments?
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.)
Limiting cross-borders money flow is a very good way to keep social contract intact.
For some reason, it was the growth of global trade that coincided with the growth of global GDP & the increase of the life quality of the earth population.
It's funny how people cry about CO2 and whatnot. But when it's about trade, suddenly transporting stuff thousands of kilometers is fiiiine.