I'm a champion of the modern game, but the problem with these comparisons is that they take place in a vacuum and will typically punish the older player over things out of his control, namely that he played in an different era and did not have the opportunity to evolve as the game has evolved.
Tim Duncan is my favorite example to use here. If he suffered a career ending injury in '05, many of the same arguments applied to diminish Jordan's greatness would be used against Duncan: "He dominated at the PF/C position before the emergence of stretch 4s and position-less basketball!" "Duncan's excellent low-post game would easily countered today by swarming wing defenses, who'd be able collapse on him but would also be quick and long enough to close out on 3 point shooters as he passed out of the double/triple team. You didn't see perimeter defenders like that in '05!" "Pace-and-Space basketball would neutralize Duncan's dominance as a paint anchor." "It's doubtful Duncan would be as lethal an offensive threat lacking a 3 point shot, something every big seems to have now!" etc, etc.
But we saw Duncan evolve as the game evolved, and I actually think it's easier for him to score now than it was in the mid-00's. The only reason he's not putting up a 20+ ppg is because he's almost 40. Prime Duncan with his quickness and skillset would terrorize the inside in pace-and-space.
We don't know how Jordan would've evolved, so the comparison is rather nonsensical. Much of the reason we all consider Jordan the greatest is because of the fact his main wing compe ion was guys who had no left hand and were marginally skilled by today's standards. He was that far ahead of his time and peers that he broke the mold and set a new standard of what wing play could and should be like. Furthermore, Jordan would be a nightmare in a modern offense, with all the spacing it generates. He would be James Harden on mega-steroids.
There's no romanticism at work here. You can look at Jordan's skillset and athleticism and easily extrapolate how dominant he would be in the modern game.
Is Lebron better than Michael in a vacuum? Perhaps. But the comparison isn't fair to Jordan. It's like saying Stephen Hawking is a "better" scientist than Albert Einstein because he (Hawking) is working on the cutting edge of theoretical physics while all Einstein did was discover the antiquated theory of relatively.
Everything evolves, and it's disingenuous to diminish accomplishments as ostensibly "worse" because they came during an earlier period of that evolution.