I don't know if it's necessarily bad programmers. Think about this analogy, there's a blacksmith that can make swords but if you want it done well, it's gonna take more time/money. That same blacksmith can choose to take on customers that insist that he make the sword quicker and cheaper (and probably shittier).

He's not gonna be the one using the sword and he can make it clear up front about the tradeoffs. If it shatters in use and the customer gets maimed, oh well, they were warned. Sometimes the market is flooded with people who just want cheap swords made fast and the blacksmith needs to pay the bills too right?

One problem with this mentality is that customers need to search more and more to find blacksmiths that provide anything other than cheap swords. They may reasonably conclude that this is just the nature of swords, and that there’s no such thing as a sword that withstands more than one or two blows. Eventually, even people who want good swords accept that they won’t be able to find a blacksmith who makes them, and settle for cheap swords instead.

In effect, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons

That's a fair point, but I don't think it's a problem with the blacksmith per se. You can't really expect every blacksmith to hold themselves to an arbitrary high standard and turn down work when they're possibly one or two missed payments away from financial ruin.

I would say if their society can grant them the safety to turn down work for cheap swords at their discretion without the risk of having their life ruined through a down period that is lacking high-quality work orders, then maybe you might have a case for also holding the blacksmiths accountable to a higher standard of work.

Accepting and taking on the risks associated with highly selective work orders has it's own intrinsic value and should be rewarded somehow. If it's not, then why would anyone do it?