Perhaps you misread what I said: looking at the top 10% rather than top 1% implies that more people are getting proportionally wealthier, when it's only the 1% that is getting wealthier. The former implication is "less bleak" than the latter reality.
Because it's not that the top 10% have roughly comparable amounts of wealth: instead it's that the 1.1%-10% have roughly the same amount while the top 1% has concentrated their power even further. I think "less bleak" is a bit tongue in cheek, but at least it could appear to be less concentrated if just just looking at the top 10%.