Nah, the young ones can do plenty, but often different, stuff. Some of the stereotypes are off, I think. In interviewing, I find the younger applicants are much less IT literate than the mid-career folks - they're good with social media, but much less skilled with basic back-office tools - again, not universal, of course. They aren't quite as well educated, IMHO - plenty smart, but a lot of gaps that are a bit surprising for people with under grad and grad degrees. Critical analysis in particular is weaker than those a generation older. Their writing skills tend to be lagging, as well. More so than you'd expect just because they have less experience.
In technical areas, the younger under grads have great depth, and, I think, demonstrate very good work ethic - once committed, they seem every bit as focused as the last couple generations, and are just as well prepared. They hit the ground running. In the "fuzzier" disciplines, not so much - the Communications and Education majors fall pretty short, compared to their older colleagues. The stereotype of youngsters having a "truncated" work ethic seems more evident in the liberal arts cohort. All this is subjective, filtered through my own biases, of course, but gleaned from a lot of interaction.
More of the previous generations came from reduced circumstances - poorer families, etc. More of them were perhaps the first or second generation to attend college. The "motivation factor" is sometimes higher for a "climber". We are much richer than we were in the past; the middle class is shrinking, but part of the exodus is UP, not just down. Maybe more of the current batch of kids aren't quite as hungry, not quite as willing to subordinate their lives to the job. The explosion in education with the GI Bill after WWII was a huge driver in upward mobility - a HS diploma was a worthy end goal, even into the 60's, but was fading fast by then, replaced by the BS/BA as the ticket to a bigger slice of the dream.
Again, all subjective on my part. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.