Obviously, if you have a few billionaires and a lot of peasants the GDP PPP will be high. You'll have a low cost of living (due to low labor costs, and plenty of supply), and a high average GDP (due to the billionaire).
Median GDP (PPP or otherwise) won't be so great, though.
I'm not saying the US sucks, just that once you stop looking at aggregate GDP you actually have to start thinking.
I agree with you entirely that if you're trying to measure how well off the majority of Americans as opposed to, say, Swiss, you should look at median income statistics as a much better measure. However, well-off-ness isn't what GDP per capita (PPP or otherwise) is trying to measure.
On a side note the best measure of income inequality is the GINI index. The US GINI index is an abysmal 45, contrasted to 33.7 for Switzerland. But, China's is 48 which is staggeringly high for a nominally socialist country.
I don't quite get it. Why should we pretend Warren Buffett et al. don't exist in this context? If these billionaires are a part of the US economy, they contribute to its strength.
In some sense, many billionaires stop being a citizen of their home country and become a "citizen of the world." This also goes for multinational corporations.
Warren Buffett is a notable exception to this, however, being "bullish on America."
Obviously, if you have a few billionaires and a lot of peasants the GDP PPP will be high. You'll have a low cost of living (due to low labor costs, and plenty of supply), and a high average GDP (due to the billionaire).
Median GDP (PPP or otherwise) won't be so great, though.
I'm not saying the US sucks, just that once you stop looking at aggregate GDP you actually have to start thinking.