This is a continuation of the examination of WSJ's article "The 'Trophy Kids' Go to Work" started previously - see part one here . You know you're dealing with a train-wreck of an article when it spouts phrases such as, "they needn't worry about their next paycheck because they have their parents to cushion them." Sure, some people are lucky and for them that's true. But for many others it's not: if they aren't gainfully employed, they're out on the street. Not pretty. Or they may be at home, but they're still expected to help their parents - and it's not just a matter of "pulling your weight around", it's a matter of keeping the family simply fed! Does the reporter really think everyone's parents look like Uncle Moneybags ? I don't have a lot of Uncle Moneybags -style stock photos. Sorry. Though he has the mustache, and a pipe too. It's kind of sickening really to think that someone can be this ignorant...
Fortunately I don't find myself working with idiots - but I did find them discussed in the august columns of the Wall Street Journal. Oddly enough the managers weren't being blamed. And to be honest, today our subject is more about idiot journalists, but they certainly air the views of people that I wouldn't want in charge of my company's HR practice. The WSJ article reads like something you would expect in the Dilbert universe - thanks to BD for pointing it out. It does a Pravda-worthy job of slamming young employees as a group. Yes, some people are stupid and aren't ready for the workforce. But trying to make it sound like everyone is like this is a complete abdication of personal responsibility - which the WSJ ironically trashes the young workers for not having - since it means you failed to find the good employees that you want to hire. Want a good example? Look at the last "CEO" hiring job done by the US public. Please please please don't screw things...