This article touches exactly the same points as the OP, it's just more direct. Only the conclusion is that because "technical debt" is widely misused, we should

This article touches exactly the same points as the OP, it's just more direct. Only the conclusion is that because "technical debt" is widely misused, we shouldn't even use that name anymore: > With all due respect to Cunningham, because the concept is so widely misunderstood and abused, it may be better to retire it. But Cunningham's observation is still real, so now it's in a need for a good name.