You can convert between financial loss and loss of human life using implied cost of averting a fatality [1], which is about $10 million.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life

That is not a bidirectional transform. A financial loss in an investment fund just means that other traders made more profit.

> You get what you pay for, if you pay for developer you'll get a developer.

That's way too oversimplified. You can be as good and as thorough as you want, but if the root of the problem is that software is seen as a cost not as an integral part of the solution, you get bad results.

This often starts with unclear/vague requirements that change every other day as new information and understanding is gained.

But it doesn't stop there - unrealistic deadlines, lack of defined processes and quality control as well as disregard (and refusal to budget and schedule) for background tasks (documentation, refactoring, ...) are also contributing factors that can turn even the best and most diligent software developer into a messy code cowboy.

If gaming the system is rewarded more or actually doing a good job is even penalised, why do a good job?

I remember reading about bad software in a radiotherapy machine inducing many deaths. And also about software in Toyota cars failing and also inducing deaths because the code was a huge mess. In the end, there is no such thing as a clear separation between "engineer" and "developers".