> At some point, I realized that I wasn't using the right arguments either. Explaining that the software will be 'more stable' or 'make maintenance much easier'

> At some point, I realized that I wasn't using the right arguments either. Explaining that the software will be 'more stable' or 'make maintenance much easier' is not palpable for someone who doesn't work in the codebase themselves. We need to speak about money. As developers, we need to speak about the cost of not doing QA. This is the language of business and managers in general. How cartoonishly incompetent have we allowed managers to get that they can't connect stability to money on their own? If the stability concerned a bridge, would engineers also be expected to translate a potential collapse into monetary terms to get their manager to approve a higher grade of steel cable?