We invested 10% to pay back tech debt
&gt; &quot;You see, the leadership did not care about the code quality as long as the stories were delivered on time.&quot;<p>My problem with the concept of technical debt is that &quot;code quality&quot; is subjective, and more often than not it translates to &quot;I don&#x27;t like the structure of this code because I didn&#x27;t write it&quot;. What matters to the business is that the code works. The owners of the business do not care if the developers enjoy working with the code or if they find it to be well written.<p>I hear all the time that bad code slows down development, increases bugs, etc. And that can be true in a number of cases. But most of the time it&#x27;s just complaining. If a developer takes the time to re-factor the code base, it&#x27;s very likely that whoever takes over from them in a few years will have the same complaints about technical debt and want to re-factor all over again.<p>The best way to ensure everyone&#x27;s job and increase compensation is to deliver features that customers really want. Doesn&#x27;t matter what the code looks like, as long as the customers are happy. Re-factoring is important to developers and to maintaining an organization. But it can wait until there aren&#x27;t pressing feature demands.