That's the statistic for men only. If you scroll up to Table 1 which represents "Hourly wages of all workers, by wage percentile, selected years, 2000–2019," you will find that the 95/10 percentile ratio increased in 2019.
Also, the only reason there was even a difference in the men appears to be widespread minimum wage increases in 2019. Here's quote from the article:
"When we compare 10th-percentile wage growth among states that are grouped by whether they had any minimum wage increase or not, the comparison yields highly suggestive results. As shown in Figure J, when looking at 10th-percentile wages, growth in states without minimum wage increases was much slower (0.9%) than in states with any kind of minimum wage increase (4.1%)."
So not only are you just incorrect, the progress that was made wasn't from trickle down milton friedman psuedo-economics that rich people invented so they can keep benefitting from you. It was just minimum wage increases, the thing the left has been pushing for since forever.
Also, the article has lots of other interesting graphs we could go into.
"Figure F illustrates the trends in wages for selected deciles (and the 95th percentile), showing the cumulative percent change in real hourly wages from 2000 to 2019. The overall story of inequality is clear. The lines demonstrate that those with the highest wages have had the fastest wage growth in recent years. From 2000 to 2019, the 95th-percentile wage grew nearly four times as fast as wages at the median (30.7% vs. 8.0%). By 2019, the 95/10 ratio had grown to 6.7 from 6.0 in 2007 and 5.6 in 2000 (see Table 1). This means that on an hourly basis the 95th-percentile wage earner was paid 6.7 times what the 10th-percentile wage earner was paid ($67.14 per hour vs. $10.07 per hour). Similar trends are found in the 95/50 wage ratio, with those at the top pulling away from those in the middle. In 2019, the 95th-percentile wage earner was paid 3.5 times as much as the median worker ($67.14 vs. $19.33), compared with 3.0 times as much in 2007 and 2.9 times as much in 2000."
I don't think the solution is tax cuts for rich people. If you do, that's fine, you can keep voting red. I don't think blue team is helping that much either but at least they aren't giving tax cuts to the top 1% and pretending it's helping everyone.