[amalag]

There are also lots of problems that we are just not interested in solving. A lot of convoluted business logic that any sane person would just not want to muddy themselves with. It may be difficult, but it doesn't feel worth it.

[Terr_]

This seems an apropos place to recycle a rant from Reddit:

[...] This happens when the managers/executives try to push the problem onto IT/engineering, blithely assuring everyone that "The New System" will somehow paper over and solve their org/process inconsistencies.

This means that the engineering teams gets requirements for one tool to handle the multiple teams' workflows and business-logic, stuff which nobody seems truly interested in harmonizing long-term. Thus your tool needs a fuckton of special-case logic and workarounds, leading it to become a monolith of spaghetti. Even if it started as a bunch of separate systems, they become slowly woven and pulled together by all special-case webservice calls and database state-sharing.

Then, after release, some people in suits spend a while patting each-other on the back, claiming to have materially improved "how we do things"... up until somebody wants to make a seemingly-simple change that conflicts with all of the other pick-up sticks.

P.S.: In a weird way, the implication that the programmers can fix those big issues is flattering, but it fades quickly as you realize:

1. You probably aren't actually being given the freedom/power to solve the real problem.

2. If you were to solve the real problem, the company would be underpaying you.

3. Even if the first two things cancel-out, the end-result is a PITA.

[angersock]

Worse is that a lot of that logic is just silly. There's no reason for it--this gets worse as you get closer to, say, regulatory issues.

Usually we end up paying the logistical debt racked up by some clever suit months or years prior.