> No one has ever made a purchasing decision based on how good your code is.

This is very much a "it's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end" sort of thing. (Same with the other variant I've heard, which is something like "no company has gone out of business because of tech debt".)

Code is as much a tool for developing and expressing conceptual models as it is for making computers do things. So not only does code quality have proximate impacts on engineering productivity and reliability, but, done well, it also improves the holistic design of the system you're building. You get better tools, faster, by putting some thought and care into your codebase and, especially, your core abstractions. Teams with good code move faster even in the short term and produce better tools and products.

Of course, it's not just a matter of code; you also need a culture that gives engineers the agency to make real, long-term decisions about what you're building (not just how) which, unfortunately, is rare to find in the modern tech industry :/ The dominant "high-output management" paradigm where code is seen as a virtually fungible "output" to be "delivered" loses the higher-order advantages of good code and good conceptual design, and leaves us with something much closer to the trade-off you describe. But there are other ways of approaching technical work that don't make this trade-off at all!