Big tech companies often produce poor-quality code despite hiring skilled engineers. A significant factor is high turnover rates; most engineers stay only a year or two, primarily due to compensation structures that incentivize switching jobs after four years. Internal mobility compounds the issue, as engineers frequently shift teams, leaving them to navigate unfamiliar codebases. Many code changes are made by relatively inexperienced engineers who have recently joined the company or the specific project. While experienced engineers, or "old hands," can mitigate some issues through code reviews, their roles are informal and often underappreciated. These seasoned engineers are usually overloaded with their own work, limiting their ability to review every change thoroughly. Consequently, the median engineer in these environments is often juggling multiple tasks and learning on the fly, leading to the creation of subpar code. This dynamic is exacerbated by company policies that prioritize flexibility and quick deployment over long-term expertise and code quality. The article emphasizes that the root of the problem lies in the organizational structure rather than individual incompetence. Engineers don’t have a say in whether they work on complex or familiar systems, and company decisions force them into situations where they cannot perform at their best. Even if every engineer were twice as skilled, the issues would persist because navigating a new codebase always comes with a learning curve. The tradeoff for companies is clear: they prefer flexibility and rapid responses to market demands over maintaining high code quality.