Reposting my old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951964 > I don't see why the analogy to debt is ne

Reposting my old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951964 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951964 > I don't see why the analogy to debt is necessary when the direct analogy is to capital underinvestment: in fact what we're talking about is or very nearly is just that, capital underinvestment, not simply something analogous to it. And the hypothetical businessy, non-technical types whom the debt analogy is intended to enlighten understand very clearly what deferring capital investment is and what the likely consequences are, at least if they actually know anything much about business. msandford's reply https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7951978 was good: > Most of the people who are pushing for "features now, someone else's problem later" are probably not upper management but rather middle management. Upper management might understand capital underinvestment. Capital underinvestment is very nearly the sole job middle management is there for. And berating people for not being done yet. At least at a couple of the places I've worked.