Coming recession to the USA and world.

[Texan77]

We have less than 2.5 workers for everyone on Social Security and Medi care. It is impossible to pay our rate of retirement and medical benefits with such a ratio. This problem has been 60 years in the making and has been known about for at least the last 50 years. Americans would not vote for anyone who wanted to fix it so here we are. Truth be told this has happened in every advance country in the world not just the USA. Most advance countries have a worse ratio than the USA. I do not know what is going to happen, but it is not going to be pretty.  It is going to be a global problem not just a USA problem. Try running for president of the USA and say I am going to cut Medi Care and Socia Security Benefits. Trump claimed he would not cut these benefits. We might make the next four years, or we might not. It cannot keep going much longer than that. SSI and Medi care make up over 50 per cent of our national budget.

[Contrarian]

We have less than 2.5 workers for everyone on Social Security and Medi care. It is impossible to pay our rate of retirement and medical benefits with such a ratio. This problem has been 60 years in the making and has been known about for at least the last 50 years. Americans would not vote for anyone who wanted to fix it so here we are. Truth be told this has happened in every advance country in the world not just the USA. Most advance countries have a worse ratio than the USA. I do not know what is going to happen, but it is not going to be pretty.  It is going to be a global problem not just a USA problem. Try running for president of the USA and say I am going to cut Medi Care and Socia Security Benefits. Trump claimed he would not cut these benefits. We might make the next four years, or we might not. It cannot keep going much longer than that. SSI and Medi care make up over 50 per cent of our national budget.

Some people have enough common sense to know that Social Security has already been cut, by high inflation.

What the government claims the rate of inflation is and what it really is are two different things.

[Manny]

I was doing some work with GPT on another screen. Out of curiosity, I plugged Tex's post into it and asked if it was accurate. That GPT is a clever thing. here's the reply, you chaps can suggest how accurate (or biased?) it is:

Your post raises some valid concerns about the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare, but there are a few points worth clarifying or expanding on.

Worker-to-Beneficiary Ratio:
You're correct that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has been declining, but the "less than 2.5 workers" figure needs context. According to the Social Security Administration, the current ratio is about 2.8 workers per beneficiary, and it is projected to drop below 2.3 by 2035. While this trend is concerning, reforms could address this imbalance, such as adjusting payroll taxes, raising the retirement age, or altering benefit formulas.

Global Comparisons:
You mention that most advanced countries have worse ratios, but that's not entirely accurate. Many countries, especially in Europe, have implemented reforms over the years, such as higher retirement ages, means-testing benefits, and mandatory private savings schemes. These measures have helped mitigate the challenges of ageing populations to some extent. The U.S. has been slower to act, which exacerbates the issue.

Political Will for Reform:
While you’re right that proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare is political suicide in the U.S., reform doesn’t have to mean "cuts." Options like expanding the payroll tax base (e.g., taxing incomes above the current cap) or introducing phased adjustments to benefits for higher earners have been floated as less drastic solutions. These changes wouldn’t necessarily mean cutting benefits for everyone.

Spending Context:
You note that Social Security and Medicare make up over 50% of the national budget. This is true when combined with other mandatory spending programs, but it’s important to note that this is based on long-term promises to retirees, funded primarily by payroll taxes and trust funds. Unlike discretionary spending, this is money Americans have largely paid into. Additionally, the rising cost of healthcare — not just demographic shifts — is a major driver of Medicare's financial challenges.

Outlook:
While it’s true that Social Security’s trust fund is projected to run out by the mid-2030s, this doesn’t mean the system will go bankrupt. Even if no reforms are made, payroll taxes would still cover about 75-80% of promised benefits. Similarly, Medicare’s issues are more tied to healthcare inflation, which requires a broader reform of the healthcare system.

In summary, while the challenges you outline are real, there’s more nuance to the situation. Sensible reforms, better fiscal planning, and modernizing systems can mitigate these issues without necessarily leading to the grim outcomes you suggest. It's a tough road ahead, but it’s not as hopeless as it might seem.

[Contrarian]

I was doing some work with GPT on another screen. Out of curiosity, I plugged Tex's post into it and asked if it was accurate. That GPT is a clever thing. here's the reply, you chaps can suggest how accurate (or biased?) it is:

Your post raises some valid concerns about the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare, but there are a few points worth clarifying or expanding on.

Worker-to-Beneficiary Ratio:
You're correct that the worker-to-beneficiary ratio has been declining, but the "less than 2.5 workers" figure needs context. According to the Social Security Administration, the current ratio is about 2.8 workers per beneficiary, and it is projected to drop below 2.3 by 2035. While this trend is concerning, reforms could address this imbalance, such as adjusting payroll taxes, raising the retirement age, or altering benefit formulas.

Global Comparisons:
You mention that most advanced countries have worse ratios, but that's not entirely accurate. Many countries, especially in Europe, have implemented reforms over the years, such as higher retirement ages, means-testing benefits, and mandatory private savings schemes. These measures have helped mitigate the challenges of ageing populations to some extent. The U.S. has been slower to act, which exacerbates the issue.

Political Will for Reform:
While you’re right that proposing cuts to Social Security or Medicare is political suicide in the U.S., reform doesn’t have to mean "cuts." Options like expanding the payroll tax base (e.g., taxing incomes above the current cap) or introducing phased adjustments to benefits for higher earners have been floated as less drastic solutions. These changes wouldn’t necessarily mean cutting benefits for everyone.

Spending Context:
You note that Social Security and Medicare make up over 50% of the national budget. This is true when combined with other mandatory spending programs, but it’s important to note that this is based on long-term promises to retirees, funded primarily by payroll taxes and trust funds. Unlike discretionary spending, this is money Americans have largely paid into. Additionally, the rising cost of healthcare — not just demographic shifts — is a major driver of Medicare's financial challenges.

Outlook:
While it’s true that Social Security’s trust fund is projected to run out by the mid-2030s, this doesn’t mean the system will go bankrupt. Even if no reforms are made, payroll taxes would still cover about 75-80% of promised benefits. Similarly, Medicare’s issues are more tied to healthcare inflation, which requires a broader reform of the healthcare system.

In summary, while the challenges you outline are real, there’s more nuance to the situation. Sensible reforms, better fiscal planning, and modernizing systems can mitigate these issues without necessarily leading to the grim outcomes you suggest. It's a tough road ahead, but it’s not as hopeless as it might seem.

You have forgotten inflation. I have come to the conclusion that this is the number one way the US deals with this problem.

[Jonas!]

If we want to keep SS at the current levels, we can start by raising the cap for higher earners. Always seemed like a no brainer to me, but it never happens.   For 2025 the cap is 176K.  Money earned over this amount is not subject to SS withholding.  If the wealthiest of earners can contribute more, or we can raise the percentage withheld for all earners, or maybe a little of both. 
We also have millions of illegals working off the books.  I know some work on the books too, often using a fake SS number, they aren't going to be able to collect later.  There has to be a compromise made by all.    We need more contributors to SS to get past the large group of baby boomers now collecting.  Gen X isn't as big and maybe that will offer relief but that won't be felt for decades because many boomers may live to a ripe old age collecting all along the way.   

Jonas! 

[andrewfi]

Inflation, or more accurately, devaluation, is not a cure for what ails us. That game only works with one major player. In reality, the devaluation of a currency becomes like a game of passing the parcel. Nobody wants to be the bag holder of all that devalued currency, so other economies also start to devalue, which tends to keep the relative positions broadly in line and thus limits the 'positive' effect of inflation on a currency and economy. That's why you see various mouthpieces in the U.S. bleat about how China (and, in the past, Japan, Europe and other major economies) are backstabbing their best friend, the U.S.

To solve the U.S. problem with debt (which drives many other issues), the degree of inflation would need to be so high that it would destroy the entire economy. And that, friends, is no solution at all!

[andrewfi]

If we want to keep SS at the current levels, we can start by raising the cap for higher earners. Always seemed like a no brainer to me, but it never happens.   For 2025 the cap is 176K.  Money earned over this amount is not subject to SS withholding.  If the wealthiest of earners can contribute more, or we can raise the percentage withheld for all earners, or maybe a little of both. 
We also have millions of illegals working off the books.  I know some work on the books too, often using a fake SS number, they aren't going to be able to collect later.  There has to be a compromise made by all.    We need more contributors to SS to get past the large group of baby boomers now collecting.  Gen X isn't as big and maybe that will offer relief but that won't be felt for decades because many boomers may live to a ripe old age collecting all along the way.   

Jonas!

Guess who would not allow that to happen—and that group has enough money to buy all the support they need in your legislature. And, of course, the legislature is stuffed full of turkeys who have no desire to vote for Christmas! (or Thanksgiving)

But, yes, conceptually, it makes sense, even if the system was designed with some kind of taper to 'protect' the wealth of the most wealthy. I have not looked at the numbers, but I would be willing to bet a few dollars of imaginary Internet money that the percentage increase required from the more wealthy in society would not be very high. But, no, in a society where people are more than happy to vote for the death of poor people in order to keep their own healthcare costs down, that kind of socially and morally aware thinking will not happen.

[Wiz]

Despite all the Russian warnings that the conflict in Ukraine is reaching a dangerous point, the West continues to escalate tensions.
Recently, a leading British politician called for the expansion of military aid to Kiev, clearly showing that London is not interested in de-escalation.

It seems that there is no limit to the bellicose Western leaders who want to take the war with Russia to its final phase.

As Lucas Leiroz, an analyst at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, reveals, in a private conversation with other G7 leaders, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that it is necessary to “continue to maximize Putin’s pain” through both military and economic measures.

He said that G7 countries should expand their military aid as well as economic sanctions, imposing even more coercive measures against the Russian Federation and its allies.

The official response

Starmer’s office issued a statement about the meeting, clarifying the issues he discussed.

The UK Prime Minister said Russian President Vladimir Putin appears strong and stubborn in continuing military action in Ukraine, which Starmer said was due to the West’s inability to inflict “pain” on him.
The British leader believes that only by inflicting damage on Russia will it be possible to force Putin to “rethink” the special military operation and ultimately abandon it.

“The Prime Minister said that with Russian President Vladimir Putin showing no signs of backing down, it is vital that we step up our support to put Ukraine in the best possible position for the future (…)
He called on fellow G7 leaders to continue to maximize Putin’s pain by increasing military support for Ukrainians and stepping up economic pressure, including through further sanctions where possible,” the statement said.

No thought of diplomacy

Starmer does not seem to believe in any diplomatic path, completely ignoring any possibility of dialogue with Russia.
Unlike his German counterpart Olaf Scholz, who recently spoke with Putin and promised to do so again, the head of the British parliament claims that it is necessary to achieve the Ukrainian victory by destroying Russia, thus believing that NATO's plan for a protracted war with Moscow is viable.

Russia's warning

By acting in this way, the British Prime Minister ignores all the recent warnings given by the Russian Federation about the dangers of an uncontrolled escalation of the conflict.

Moscow is warning the West about the danger posed by NATO’s increasingly active involvement in Ukrainian military operations, especially in terms of the use of long-range missiles against targets on recognized Russian territory.

The United Kingdom is among the countries supplying these weapons to Ukraine and, therefore, is participating in the crimes committed by the Kiev regime against Russian regions outside the conflict zone.
As is known, these long-range weapons contain special technology that NATO does not want to give to the Ukrainians.

In this sense, the military equipment is operated by Western specialized personnel illegally on Ukrainian territory.

This means that such attacks are deliberate Western actions against recognized Russian territories.

According to the new Russian nuclear doctrine, such Western-Ukrainian strikes legitimize a Russian nuclear response.

Moscow is refraining from taking such measures to prevent a catastrophe, but if the provocations continue to escalate, the time may come when it will be impossible to avoid a response.

Deliberate provocations

By ignoring such Russian warnings, Starmer is deliberately contributing to the escalation of the conflict and bringing it ever closer to the point of no return.
It must be stressed that there are few military measures left to be taken.
Given that long-range weapons are already being used, the West cannot do much more.
Some NATO hawks are calling for the deployment of troops on the ground or the delivery of nuclear weapons to Ukraine, for example.
Of course, any of these actions would trigger a Russian nuclear response.

The role of sanctions

As for sanctions, Russia’s economic success over the past three years has made it clear that no coercive trade measures will have any practical effect.
Moscow has prepared for the West’s trade war by creating a strategy to enter the Asian market after losing its partnerships with Europe.
In the end, Russian gains were made and the West itself, especially European countries, was hurt by the sanctions.
Therefore, calling for more coercive measures is simply a waste of time, as this will affect the West itself, not Russia.
The West must now choose between going to the extreme, potentially nuclear consequences of war or following the path of de-escalation.

“Hawks” like Starmer seem ready to risk all-out war.

From www.bankingnews.g

[2tallbill]

Try running for president of the USA and say I am going to cut Medi Care and Socia Security Benefits. Trump claimed he would not cut these benefits. We might make the next four years, or we might not. It cannot keep going much longer than that. SSI and Medi care make up over 50 per cent of our national budget.

You raise the retirement age. People are living longer. In 1935, when the
social security pension system was implemented, significant differences
in life expectancy existed. Life expectancy at birth was 61.0 for males
and 65.0 for females.

[2tallbill]

Outlook:
While it’s true that Social Security’s trust fund is projected to run out
by the mid-2030s

Hahahaha,

There is no such thing as a social security trust fund. It's like the briefcase of
IOU's from Dumb and dumber.

[Jonas!]

  That's why you see various mouthpieces in the U.S. bleat about how China (and, in the past, Japan, Europe and other major economies) are backstabbing their best friend, the U.S.
 

The constant scapegoating we listen to on media outlets seems to work for a large percentage of Americans.  We are angels and these other evil countries are at fault.

But, no, in a society where people are more than happy to vote for the death of poor people in order to keep their own healthcare costs down, that kind of socially and morally aware thinking will not happen.

Remember this is the society whose wealth was built from cotton/slavery.  The Native Americans helped the pilgrims survive...and shortly afterwords were systematically and intentionally brutely wiped out....same society.   The same society that now wants to deport 10's of millions of people because of paperwork...a group we let in on purpose for decades.    So no surprise what you stated above.   
  When it comes to making actual sacrifices for fellow decent hard-working members of society that is where the line is drawn!   Our society will continue to blame outside nations, when really it is mostly us to blame. 

Jonas!   

[Jonas!]

Try running for president of the USA and say I am going to cut Medi Care and Socia Security Benefits. Trump claimed he would not cut these benefits. We might make the next four years, or we might not. It cannot keep going much longer than that. SSI and Medi care make up over 50 per cent of our national budget.

You raise the retirement age. People are living longer. In 1935, when the
social security pension system was implemented, significant differences
in life expectancy existed. Life expectancy at birth was 61.0 for males
and 65.0 for females.

Yes nowadays people can collect SS for 30-40 years and that is not sustainable.   Unfortunately, a part of the puzzle is to raise retirement age, which is a problem for some people working physical jobs.  Some elders would need to transition into mentoring, desk jobs, teaching.   My first beer drinking father-in-law is now 70 years old and still works in construction every day so for some it is quite doable, but he has lucked out with decent health. 

Jonas! 

[WestCoast]

If we want to keep SS at the current levels, we can start by raising the cap for higher earners. Always seemed like a no brainer to me, but it never happens.   For 2025 the cap is 176K.  Money earned over this amount is not subject to SS withholding.  If the wealthiest of earners can contribute more, or we can raise the percentage withheld for all earners, or maybe a little of both. 
We also have millions of illegals working off the books.  I know some work on the books too, often using a fake SS number, they aren't going to be able to collect later.  There has to be a compromise made by all.    We need more contributors to SS to get past the large group of baby boomers now collecting.  Gen X isn't as big and maybe that will offer relief but that won't be felt for decades because many boomers may live to a ripe old age collecting all along the way.   

Jonas!

Guess who would not allow that to happen—and that group has enough money to buy all the support they need in your legislature. And, of course, the legislature is stuffed full of turkeys who have no desire to vote for Christmas! (or Thanksgiving)

But, yes, conceptually, it makes sense, even if the system was designed with some kind of taper to 'protect' the wealth of the most wealthy. I have not looked at the numbers, but I would be willing to bet a few dollars of imaginary Internet money that the percentage increase required from the more wealthy in society would not be very high. But, no, in a society where people are more than happy to vote for the death of poor people in order to keep their own healthcare costs down, that kind of socially and morally aware thinking will not happen.

Andy the UK is doing far worse. Cutting the winter fuel allowance to the seniors in most need. Allowing in a flow of illegals just like the previous government that is costing the taxpayer millions a day to support in hotels. Some on social media say that by the 2060s white Brits will be a minority and probably by the end of the century the UK will be an Islamic state with some areas being Muslim majority sooner.

https://www.urbankapital.com/post/white-uk-population-could-become-a-minority-by-the-2060s-says-expert

[Manny]

In a worrying new development, I agree with Westy above.

[andrewfi]

It isn't an issue whether the UK is doing better or worse. The UK is nowhere near the size of the USA in terms of economic power or influence.

When the U.S. sneezes, we all catch a cold. That's what China, Russia and, now, other economies are working to avoid - catching a cold!

[Texan77]

When the U.S. sneezes, we all catch a cold. That's what China, Russia and, now, other economies are working to avoid - catching a cold!

China and Russian economies are far worse than the USA. All the problems the USA has they have them even worse. They are not going to avoid anything they are the epi center. What makes this upcoming economic hardship period so likely to be so really bad is it will be everywhere. You guys read your propaganda and believe it is only a USA problem, and everything is good with Russia and China. It is not. Most of Europe has this problem and countries that depend on exports are going to have huge problems. Most natural resources will be use in lower quantities, exports will drop like a rock on most items, housing surpluses will exist in much of the world and a fall in real estate prices, banks going bust and the list of things going wrong will be huge.

[B.B.]

Options like expanding the payroll tax base (e.g., taxing incomes above the current cap)

Yeah, that's a terrible idea.  Even the pols understand that.  That would functionally be a marginal tax rate AND the corporate tax rate of 6%+.  The non-geniuses who propose this will also be saying, after the ensuing massive recession, "Hurr, durr, how could this happen?!"

What SHOULD happen is a that workers should have an IRA-type account that they contribute to, own and can pass along to heirs. If one invested in index funds and later bonds, one would retire with literal MILLIONS more than simply giving it to the government.

Ofc the government would really be able to loot it like they do now, so there's that.

And uncapped tax with capped benefits isn't particularly appealing either.

introducing phased adjustments to benefits for higher earners have been floated as less drastic solutions. These changes wouldn’t necessarily mean cutting benefits for everyone.

So they take $ from you when you are young and need it and then fcuk you over later?  Yeah, no thanks.

I think they will simply put off the age for full retirement.  For me that's 67, not 65 (although I never include SocSec in my calculus.) 

And I'm not sure that "Hey we're gonna    you over so that the Baby Boomers can continue to live in the style to which they have become accustomed" is a winner either.

The reality is there isn't just one solution. 

B/B

[Jonas!]

When the U.S. sneezes, we all catch a cold. That's what China, Russia and, now, other economies are working to avoid - catching a cold!

China and Russian economies are far worse than the USA.

I wouldn't lump these two nations together when it comes to economics.   I'm not sure why you would say China's economy is worse far worse than the US economy.  China runs a trade surplus of almost a trillion dollars a year.   The US runs a 600+ billion-dollar trade deficit and a budget deficit of around 2 trillion a year.     China has billions to slosh around the globe on infrastructure which is giving them a greater foothold and influence which could lead to even higher trade surpluses.   As a nation, their people are gaining financial prowess while we are heading in the other direction.

Jonas! 

[Jonas!]

Options like expanding the payroll tax base (e.g., taxing incomes above the current cap)

Yeah, that's a terrible idea.  Even the pols understand that.  That would functionally be a marginal tax rate AND the corporate tax rate of 6%+.  The non-geniuses who propose this will also be saying, after the ensuing massive recession, "Hurr, durr, how could this happen?!"

No.  It isn't a 'terrible idea' to raise the cap, it is sensible to raise the income cap as part of a solution to any shortfall in SS.  No assurance that would create a recession that we didn't already have coming anyway.  I'd rather see that additional SS money going to the old people that live off of it, rather than collecting dust in a bank account of people that don't need nor miss the money.   SS money has to come from somewhere and raising the cap is one of the places it can come from. 

What SHOULD happen is a that workers should have an IRA-type account that they contribute to, own and can pass along to heirs. If one invested in index funds and later bonds, one would retire with literal MILLIONS more than simply giving it to the government.

Ofc the government would really be able to loot it like they do now, so there's that.

 

SHOULD doesn't solve the current problem though.   10's of millions have already contributed to SS.  If it were realistic to pay them out (Including you and me) and convert to an IRA like you are proposing I'd be for it, but I don't think the money is there. 

The looting of the SS means somebody is going to have to pay...and that is going to be us. No free ride. 

Jonas! 

[B.B.]

No.  It isn't a 'terrible idea' to raise the cap

It is, in fact, a galactically stupid idea, for the reasons I mentioned, as well as others.  But ok.

No assurance that would create a recession that we didn't already have coming anyway. 

So, "Hurr, durr, how could this happen?!", got it.

rather than collecting dust in a bank account of people that don't need nor miss the money.

First, you do realize that's not how bank accounts work, right?  Apparently not. 

Second, as SocSec is a transfer of wealth from the young to the old, and younger workers are generally less well off than older folks, so you are, in fact, taking money from people who do need it.

Repeatedly having to explain basic stuff to you is why I noped out.  You are simply committed to whatever opinions you have, no matter how ill-thought out they might be, and are immune to any evidence to the contrary.  You either don't care if you're wrong, or don't know that you are.  I'm leaning towards Dunning-Kruger on this.  Anyway, cheers.

B/B

[Jonas!]

It is, in fact, a galactically stupid idea, for the reasons I mentioned, as well as others.  But ok.

Anybody that thinks they have all the answers is 'galactically stupid'....but ok.

So, "Hurr, durr, how could this happen?!", got it.
 

Yes you 'got it'...a case of "Know it alls".   Which of course is galactically stupid.

 

First, you do realize that's not how bank accounts work, right?  Apparently not. 

Second, as SocSec is a transfer of wealth from the young to the old, and younger workers are generally less well off than older folks, so you are, in fact, taking money from people who do need it.

Repeatedly having to explain basic stuff to you is why I noped out.  You are simply committed to whatever opinions you have, no matter how ill-thought out they might be, and are immune to any evidence to the contrary.  You either don't care if you're wrong, or don't know that you are.  I'm leaning towards Dunning-Kruger on this.  Anyway, cheers.

B/B

More galactically stupid nonsense. 

Most of the wealth is locked up by people older than 50 and a lot of that is tied to assets, which will not be subject to SS taxes.
 Nevertheless, raising the SS cap on earnings is a part of a multipronged solution.   People earning 500, 700, 800K a year don't 'need' much of anything.  It's all luxury at that point.  If there wasn't a brewing problem with SS things could go on the way they are.  I'd rather see some of the money going to the seniors of the future, so they aren't eating cat food.     

You haven't provided any 'evidence' of anything.  Maybe a little lesson on what the word 'evidence' means would help you along....but I doubt it.     

Jonas! 

[B.B.]

You haven't provided any 'evidence' of anything. 

Yes, because, as I've already explained to you, I'm done trying to educate you.  It's a pointless exercise.  This response merely confirms that I was correct.  Lots of sniping because of your hurt feels. 

Cheers,

B/B

[2tallbill]

I wouldn't lump these two nations together when it comes to economics.   I'm not sure why you would say China's economy is worse far worse than the US economy.  China runs a trade surplus of almost a trillion dollars a year.   

In measuring an economy, what matters most? You could measure it in
Gross size, or by various metrics that you've listed above. You could
also measure it in ability for an industrious, honest person to get
ahead and provide for his family. You could measure it by the
standard of living for individual families and/or freedom. 

Beauty and Economics is in the eye of the beholder. There are countless
Chinese who would love to live in the USA because of the potential to
improve the lives of themselves and their families.

[Jonas!]

You haven't provided any 'evidence' of anything. 

Yes, because, as I've already explained to you, I'm done trying to educate you.  It's a pointless exercise.  This response merely confirms that I was correct.  Lots of sniping because of your hurt feels. 

Cheers,

B/B

Oh my feeling are just fine....check your own feelings. 

Most of your posts on this topic aren't about 'educating' anyone, so why must you pretend?     If they were, they would be written differently, and you wouldn't be receiving the incoming that you rightfully receiving and begging for.    You can poo-poo the idea of raising the cap on SS contributions, but the reasoning hasn't been very sensible.  I believe it is a part of a potential solution. 


Jonas!   

[Jonas!]

I wouldn't lump these two nations together when it comes to economics.   I'm not sure why you would say China's economy is worse far worse than the US economy.  China runs a trade surplus of almost a trillion dollars a year.   

In measuring an economy, what matters most? You could measure it in
Gross size, or by various metrics that you've listed above. You could
also measure it in ability for an industrious, honest person to get
ahead and provide for his family. You could measure it by the
standard of living for individual families and/or freedom. 

Beauty and Economics is in the eye of the beholder. There are countless
Chinese who would love to live in the USA because of the potential to
improve the lives of themselves and their families.

That all is true.   The thing is as China continues to gain more market share, and wealth, they can have many of the same luxuries we do here.  I believe their rise does wind up depressing opportunities here and in other nations, but it is survival of the fittest. 

I do continue to believe that a hardworking, reasonably social person able to make smart business decisions in the US can get ahead when he/she creates their own business.  My adult children overcame the handicap of me as their only parent and have created amazing businesses.  They are smarter than the average bear, nevertheless I think most others could do the same if they had the type of initiative, courage, and intelligence.  I think that most people get tripped up and wind up working 'for da man'...against their will.  Even then people can do fairly well.      I really can't speak of the opportunities of the average person in China, but I would suspect they significantly bleaker.