[morganpyne]

I would counter that with the argument that most people paying the bills do not want to pay the extra short-term costs associated with doing things more correctly. I know that I'm probably preaching to the choir here when I say that this is obviously a false-economy and you are deferring costs and building technical debt by working like that, but clients often want to save a quick buck. Good clients understand that this isn't wise, and are golden to have as customers.

Of course, there is often no real need to build code to be any more than 'just good enough' in the same way that many people are quite happy to purchase a plywood-backed piece of IKEA furniture instead of a solid mahogany hand-crafted piece. It serves their purposes just fine and saves them a ton of money. A good developer will similarly be able to determine what the precise definition of 'good enough' is for any given project scope/budget/time constraints.

[hello_moto]

I agree with you. I did not mention the bar of quality expected by the client.

That is fall under the "negotiation" phase between the client and the service provider. There should be some sort of agreeable quality other than "I just want the best of everything".

But the rule might be different for "product" based company than the "services" (consulting) based.