I think this is basically it.
A lot of discussions of inequality in the US eventually end up as discussions of nominal equalness, like the problem is about making sure everyone gets paid the same amount. What the real problem is probably is more like certain beneficiaries are overvalued and overpaid, either through rent seeking, structural problems, deception, or something else, and/or the others are underpaid, and/or certain costs of labor are being unpaid.
If you have a highly profitable business and basic employee needs aren't being met by the employer's compensation, it's sort of necessarily a sign that certain costs of labor -- food, shelter, and healthcare for the workers -- aren't being paid when they could be.
It's like if I hired a carpenter to redo cabinetry in my house, and then decided I wouldn't pay for the materials because it wasn't something the carpenter themselves produced. The food and health of the workers is something the employer is benefiting from that is necessary to the labor, and they're just assuming that the workers are getting it from elsewhere.
I think the tendency for "greater equalness" to often seem like a goal in itself is kind of an indirect consequence of the fact that often when you account for all the hidden unpaid costs and overvaluations and undervaluations, employees of a company or institution probably should be more equal than they often are.
It's strange that we accept all these economic notions of price fixing, fraud, theft, and over and undervaluation when it comes to physical goods, but when it comes to labor and employer and employee compensation we just kind of pretend it's all perfect markets, with perfectly rational actors and no structural problems.