I think locality matters for income inequality. The poor kid in Bangladesh, really doesn't care that someone owns a $100 Million apartment in Manhattan. However, if you are the working poor in NYC struggling to make ends meet, you are likely to feel something viscerally (maybe a tiny amount) when you go past those apartments.
People tend to compare and judge locally. Who you see, who you interact with on a daily basis matter far more than some theoretical person 1000's of miles away.
Yes, neoliberal globalism increases inequality in the distribution of wealth between individuals within developed states, and those in developing states, and globally. It also increases aggregate inequality between countries, particularly between (on the high side) countries whose comparative advantage lies in finished goods and services and those whose comparative advantage lies in extractive industries (other than those subject to effective cartel control, but that tends not to be long-term stable.)
OTOH, it tends to reduce extreme absolute poverty.
Now, large corporations are taking and pocketing a large part of that transferred wealth, effectively gouging it back (and making it even more concentrated in their home countries in the process). And why can they do that? Because, while capital and goods can flow across borders mostly unrestricted, labor is constrained by immigration restrictions. Chinese workers don't get direct access to the US market - no, they have to work for transnationals that will pay them slightly better than local wage, and then sell the product of their labor for as much as they can in countries where wages (and hence prices) are much higher.