All of those things are true, but it’s easy to overcredit late Rome for their advantages. Remember a lot of the history, perceptions and analysis we get really grows out of 19th century work, where glorification of empire was something of a vested interest of gentlemen of the day.
The western Roman Empire had stagnated for years and lost a lot of ground.
This just and similar rebuttals just make the point that the lost ground happened in a gradual fashion. When the parts of the structure fell, much had already rotted away, sure.
That doesn't change the basic outline that the situation involved a decline in "civilization" and general quality of life. IE, it was a rather bad time, in contrast to the OP.
The western Roman Empire had stagnated for years and lost a lot of ground.