Social security crisis math

Matt Yglesias argues that no no no, social security isn't in crisis. And here's part of the reason why:

AND ONCE MORE. Last week I was happy to have a chance to revisit the old pro-Social Security talking points of yesteryear. Now I'm a bit frightened that I need to do it again this week. Will Saletan darkly warns: " 1945, for every Social Security beneficiary, we had 42 workers paying in. By 2002, we had just 3.3 workers per beneficiary. By 2030, we'll have only 2.2 workers per beneficiary."

This was a classic of the privatization debate and it makes no sense. Indeed, it proves the reverse of what Saletan seems to think it shows. The transition from a 42:1 worker/beneficiary ratio to a 3.3:1 ratio was a giant change -- an almost thirteen-fold increase in the burden per worker. The forecast shift from a 3.3:1 ratio to a 2.2:1 ration is, in comparison, a tiny adjustment. If we survived the first transition without anything terrible happening, we can easily survive the latter one. The magic word in how this works is "productivity." If, as the country gets richer, everyone can enjoy longer, healthier retirements, that's a good thing, not a crisis.