Maybe as part of global growth and technology advances. Doesn't change a thing about this being a direct transfer from the poor to the wealthy, who themselves seem to fairly adamant about not increasing investment due to this, just giving more profits to shareholders.
The idea that it is possible to redistribute wealth between levels of wealth in a capitalist macroeconomy isn't a sound idea. A way of understanding this is that if the government goes to Apple and pulls a million out of the shareholders' pockets and gives it to Apple employees, the employees will still only have the same income as before because Apple will lower current and future wages by a million. Or if the government makes a law that Apple can't lower the future wages somehow, then Apple will increase the product price and then millions of consumers experience an equivalent wealth decrease. And if the government makes that illegal, Apple will operate at higher risk, get lower investment, produce less product over time, and its employees will see lower wages and more job volatility enough to make up for it. The same type of rationale works if trying to redistribute from poor to rich. Redistribution doesn't redistribute.

Sure, but what makes that dude build those widgets if not demand?
That demand derives from the supply produced by those demanding.

There are a lot of ways to think of demand; one way is that it's like a budget constraint. Your demand isn't your hypothetical desire for things given an infinite budget; instead it's the quantities of goods/services you would buy at given prices dependent on your budget funds and preferences. From where do budget funds derive? According to Say's Law, from production. If you do not produce, you have nothing to trade with, which means the quantity you demand of a good/service at any given price is 0.