Most of what you learn in school, especially undergrad, has very tenuous relevance to your day to day work. There are many reasons for this: Lecture format is not suited to teaching many things well, classes are poorly designed, instructors are out of touch and don't have real investment in training you properly, we could go on. The point is, it is extremely rare to encounter a moment where you would think "Oh, because I have learned this in undergrad my task will be super easy!"
That's not to say you should stop going to class and drop out. Challenging, philosophically meaty classes can augment your self-learning in many ways. They expose you to crucial context that you wouldn't pick up on your own, train your intellectual skills so you can think on your feet effectively, and generally make you better at thinking and learning. But there will always be a long causal chain going from that to concrete day to day benefits, with many other incidental factors.
Because of this there is no point in asking "How will X course help me in Y job?". You should take courses on the basis of whether they serve your own intellectual goals. By that I mean not things you want to learn to tick an employer's checkbox, but things which you consider worth learning. Obviously you have to have some sort intellectual goal for any of this to apply, and you must have some philosophy with regards to what is actually worth learning. Developing this sort of sense is arguably a priority for a college student.
Humanities as a subject is not counterproductive or useless for a programmer. Like much knowledge work, programming heavily relies on analytical skill, problem solving ability, logic and being able to quickly pick up new technical concepts. Humanities can be very effective in developing these. Sometimes they can be more effective, because they can have latitude in eschewing technical matters and focus purely on the intellectual aspects (eg. philosophy). They can also teach you intellectual techniques (as in ways of reasoning effectively) that you cannot really learn anywhere else. Subjects like literature can impart a perspective and grounding.
Almost all humanities courses place a heavy emphasis on effective communication. In fact as an undergrad it is hard to find a more rigorous training in communication anywhere else. As others point out, communication is a crucial skill and also a highly sought one by employers. So you do get that "concrete benefit", if you will.
But generally, you will not learn anything in a humanities course that you could directly apply to anything at your job (this largely applies to your computer science courses as well). However, having learned the humanities, you will most likely find like countless other people that you become better at your job. This is because you become better at finding the things to apply, and better at applying them.
All of this is also predicated on the assumption that the courses you take are high quality. I would go as far as to argue that you should always take the highest quality course available (that appeals to you), no matter the area. Because college instructors are rarely well-incentivized to provide quality instruction (they are rather incentivized to bring fame and monies to the college through their scholarship) you will often find many low quality courses, even at elite institutions. By low quality, I mean courses which fail the task of intellectually challenging students and promoting their growth. Such courses are a waste of time regardless of their field.
I find the course really boring and unnecessary for me to learn, as most of the content is basic and easy to complete. Despite this, I don't put my 100% effort into the course which has led me to get some bad grades (I skipped doing 1 assessment that was worth 20% of my final mark) and at this point, I'm just hoping to scrape by and get at least 50% to pass the unit from my other 2 assessment tasks.
If it is truly basic and fails to spark your curiosity, then it is a waste of time and you shouldn't bother. However, it's also important to be honest with yourself. When you say it's boring and basic, is that a fair and objective judgement of the course? Or are you just saying that to rationalize your own negative emotions? If it was really was so easy to complete, one imagines that you could put in 20% of your effort and still get a high grade. Not to say there are no classes that require a lot of effort and still are useless, but that doesn't sound like it is the case here. Logically, either the course is easy and you get your easy A that at least brings your GPA up, or it's a hard course that teaches things you don't know. Whether you care to learn those is another matter.
Luckily, this is the only humanities subject unit I have to take (thank god) and I perform quite well in my other units.
Often the mandatory electives are the worst quality courses, for obvious reasons. But it's also irrelevant whether they're helpful in your career, given that you have no choice but to take them. In the situation that elective you can pick seem to teach you nothing interesting, you should pick the elective that allows you to get the best grade with the least effort. But usually you can talk to your advisor and get permission to take another elective that IS interesting, and this is almost always the better option.
