I'm an Xer (75). Let me just say that based on my experience, which includes a few years in management, the WSJ article is an accurate and fair description of the millennial generation (from a purely stereotypical pov).
Now, that's not to say I disagree with Matt. He does however use many counter arguments that are more applicable to Xers than millenials (Yers). Yer's have never seen much of economic downturn, and the "meager, middle class lifestyles" they been living are have showered them with seemingly endless material wealth.
I think Matt has misread most of the WSJ article, to be honest.
I don't doubt that the description is fair, but I think that it comes down to this: if a few entitled slackers expect 6 figure salaries straight out of college, that's their problem, but if an entire generation of would be slaves aren't eagerly strapping on the chains, that's management's problem.
As a gen Yer, I got the sense from the article (and I'm sure this is full of bias) that the onus was on me to "shape up." I think the exact opposite is true, that management is going to have change expectations (which the article does address).
I didn't get that sense to be honest. WSJ's audience is mainly boomers in management roles, not you. (although there's an example of what the article is trying to say!)
I agree though that this isn't your problem at all, and I think you're seeing that shift with the notion of flex time, etc. These things only exist as a response to your generation. Xer's would have loved them, but we never had the numbers.
And that's the other key: your numbers. The last generation to cause this much havoc in the workplace was your parents'. I think it's funny that it's them that will need to deal with the fruits of their labour, to be honest. :-)
And it's interesting you point out that the parents will have to deal with their own children, because it's probably the case that children of the "management elite" (who are now facing a problem) are likely to be the ones with the greatest sense of entitlement, as opposed to say the kid whose dad was a construction worker.
I think both matt and the wsj are off. It's not about a sense of entitlement or superior productivity (which I don't believe for a minute). The wsj "brat" characterization doesn't match the "lazy" characterization I've more commonly seen.
The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard because at some subconscious level they understand that the current system will not continue and will not reward hard work as it has. They know they won't see a dime of their substantial FICA withholdings. They know they will not ride another bull market to retirement and collect government checks. Perhaps at some level they have even sensed the precarious state of the dollar and the potential futility of trying to squirrel away wealth. Why work hard when the government will tax or inflate most of it away, and you're unlikely to get good compensation in the first place?
The older generations are too invested in the system to reach similar conclusions. (Though it's interesting that doctors and lawyers are leaving the professions in droves.) It's the psychology of sunk costs. Asking around about social security is highly illustrative. A large fraction of young people will come right out and say SS is probably going to collapse in coming years. Very few people in their 40s will admit to this obvious truth.
This pattern where the younger generation senses the jig is up and gives up the struggle before their elders can admit it is not rare. You can see the same thing in Japan. You saw it in the Soviet Union before the fall.
The real story is that the younger generation doesn't want to work hard because at some subconscious level they understand that the current system will not continue and will not reward hard work as it has.
Pundits said exactly that about Generation X in the 90s. They turned out to be mistaken, as you are.
Social security is not going to collapse unless the rest of the US goes first. It's no more an "obvious truth" than "global temperatures are going to rise 10 degrees by 2100." Yes, it could happen, but only if we do nothing policy-wise to fix it, which is unlikely.
Medicare is another story. Look at the this graph to get an idea of the difference:
It was a little tangential, and making 100-year predictions about global warming probably set off someone's troll-o-meter (wasn't me). Don't worry about 0 or -1; it's usually just a gentle reminder to be polite in these discussions.
(Note: nothing annoys people more than commenting on moderation instead of the main article.)
Now, that's not to say I disagree with Matt. He does however use many counter arguments that are more applicable to Xers than millenials (Yers). Yer's have never seen much of economic downturn, and the "meager, middle class lifestyles" they been living are have showered them with seemingly endless material wealth.
I think Matt has misread most of the WSJ article, to be honest.