The UK is still the 5th biggest economy in the world. Public infrastructure feels like it's under huge strain however, and there is also a big problem with inequality, which seems to be changing under Labour, albeit slowly.
Raw economy size can be misleading in two ways. The value of a dollar is much less or much more depending on where you're at. So an economy of 10 shekels might mean an economy of 100 widgets, or it might mean an economy of 1 widget. Purchasing power parity (PPP) attempts to account for that. The second is that economies are largely a product of population. An economy of a million making a million shekels is quite a bit different than an economy of 10 making a million shekels, so you also want to look at per capita values. Even both of these adjustments combined [1] can be extremely misleading (see: Ireland and many other places...), but they provide at least a less unreasonable basis for comparison than nominal dollars. And the UK is currently 30th there.
I think GDP per capita can also be misleading though - the GDP per capita of Luxembourg or Brunei is high, but they're such small countries that it's kind of irrelevant.
Setting aside the special cases (tiny, oil money, weird finance sectors, tax havens etc) there's basically a handful of countries which are clearly doing something right - the US, Taiwan, the north-eastern European countries (Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden). Most of the other "developed countries" are sitting in the same sort of GDP per capita range of $65-$75k. Ranking these isn't so meaningful - the difference between the UK and France is only 1.5%.
Maybe! Our modern economic system are essentially driven by endless debt, and that only began in 1971 after the end of Bretton Woods. Even Germany has recently hopped on the debt train. Personally I not only don't think it's sustainable, and if not then it may well end up being one of the shortest lived economic experiments ever.
Something to keep in mind is that in the 70s digital tech also started to come into its own and that basically provided a massive economic boon to countries worldwide, but especially in the US. And so the concept of endless infinite exponential growth, as the current experiment effectively requires, was coincidentally paired alongside an era that made that briefly seem possible.
But now that that era is fading, the consequences of our actions are catching up to us. For instance in the US interest on the debt is now about 3% of the GDP, and the debt itself about 120% of GDP. And as faith in the debt falters, that will increase exponentially because rates for borrowing (which is how the government 'prints' money) will increase, due to reduced demand paired with increases in supply for such.
--
Basically instead of looking at GDP or whatever, I'd look to things on life contentment, optimism, and so on. If those are positive, then I think a government must be doing something right. If those are negative, then who cares what this metric or that says?
It's not a "good" wage in the US. It's exactly median.
Which is fine, someone has to be median, but really underwhelming for the (presumably highly-educated and talented) head of the #1 national historical monument.
This is such a misuse of the word poor. Have you actually been to a poor country?
The UK is poorer than the US - sure. But it's wealthier than most other countries in the world. Not just in terms of GDP per capita or average household wealth, but also in infrastructure terms - the cumulative effect of being a wealthy industrialised country for so long is a huge amount of infrastructure.
I think it's fair to say that UK wealth growth has slowed at the same time as many other countries have caught up. So the UK is no longer the leader it once was. But that's very different from saying it's a poor country. It's just not.
By your definition 95% of the world population live in 'poor' countries. I guess if that's how you want to use the word that's up to you, but people outside of your bubble will literally not understand what you are saying.
While true from a per capita equivalency and too close for comfort, the median net worth of an adult in the UK is roughly $150,000, while in Mississippi it's $15,000. Also, its public services are provided, which substantially affects the quality of life.