It seems to me the people who promote these sweeping negative generational generalizations are usually those who have a vested interest in promoting them - this

It seems to me the people who promote these sweeping negative generational generalizations are usually those who have a vested interest in promoting them - this article being a prime example. Hmmm let's see, the WSJ article's arguments were based on: 1.The opinions of a few consultants (who no doubt make at least part of their living offering seminars for the poor managers on how to deal with these 'millenials' as well as seminars for the millenials on how to be effective with their new bosses). 2.Anecdotal evidence from a couple HR people and a couple managers, one "study" by Collegiate Employment Research Institute and MonsterTrak, an online careers site (they did a study - it must be true!) 3.A survey by another career site where even by its own metrics only two dimensions showed a clear majority opinion (higher pay and flexible work schedules - something the workplace has been trending toward for years anyway). Every generation has been negatively characterized one way or another (the 60's hippies turned into the 70's/80's yuppies, generation "X" aka "the slackers", and now the "millenials" aka "the entitled". Somehow all the generations previous and present did fine and I suspect the same will be of future generations as well.