Playing Video Games Might Be a Job

A common argument against government entitlements generally, but especially against the idea of Universal Basic Income, is that providing money to people for nothing reduces their incentive to work.  I’ve written before about the definitional problem we have with “work” but I’d still like to think through this a bit using society’s go-to slacker example: young men playing games instead of working.  

To put the argument simply, if we give someone money just for living, then they’ll sit around and play video games rather than doing something productive.  An argument like this, though seemingly intuitive, ignores the relationship between the creator and the consumer.   

The programmers and artists that create video games do so because they love their craft.  What else would drive someone to work extremely long hours for relatively average pay?  While it is possible some of these folks would stop making games if they started getting a basic income, many would continue because of their passion for it.  But, as any indie musician, author, or filmmaker will tell you, a work doesn’t go anywhere without an audience to consume it. 

The relation between creator and consumer, programmer and player, creates value.  I’m not referring to money, which is the eventual representation of that value, but rather I’m referring to value unto itself.  Supply and demand.  Players want games and stories to entertain and captivate.  Programmers want the satisfaction of seeing their work to fruition and enjoyed by others.  Together they form a symbiotic circle of value that keeps that industry thriving regardless of where the money comes from. 

But should we pay video gamers simply because games need to be played?  Does this relationship justify getting paid for it?  Let’s deconstruct this in another way by backing into the hobby by starting with a critic. 

Let’s start with a video game critic who makes her living by playing video games and then writing articles for magazines and websites reviewing and recommending the games.  She’s clearly doing work because she’s writing an article and getting paid for it. 

Next, consider a gamer who plays the same games as the critic above for the same amount of time, but does the write-up for their personal blog that generates no income.  Is this person not working?  They’ve enacted the same labor as the critic above, they’ve just not been paid. 

Finally, let’s take it back one step further, to a gamer who plays the same games for the same amount of time but doesn’t write articles.  Has this person done work?  What if they recommend the games to their friends or on a message board?  Where is the dividing line? 

To further complicate things, many modern video games require an internet connection in order to play.  While the player plays, data is collected about their playing habits that is eventually used to sell advertising.  So they are creating value in the economy without having to undertake any additional “work”. 

We could use this same line of argument with music or movies and tv, where data about our habits are used to make other people money. 

Again, we find ourselves running into a definitional problem where we can’t agree on what counts as “work”.  There’s a societal contradiction that work is supposed to be a virtue unto itself and yet we think all work will stop without the right incentives.  Maybe that’s true for jobs like telemarketing, door-to-door cleaner sales, and other generally undesirable work.  But do we care if people stop doing these things?  As far as I’m concerned we can give all those jobs to robots and all start doing something more interesting with our time.  Even if that means just playing video games.