The problem with "tech debt" is that in the heads of non-developers it is equated with financial debt. When you take on financial debt for a business it's a long-term investment (a buy-to-rent mortgage on a property, or a business loan to buy a factory plant for example). So OK, we're a startup that needs to find the right market, so we'll take on X amount of tech debt to get there, and then when we are in a better place we'll pay down the tech debt in installments of X amount per month.

Mostly what I've seen of "tech debt" has not been this kind of deliberate decision making of tradeoffs. It's more like:

1. Non-tech founders want to start a tech company.

2. Seeing the high salaries of developers they opt to hire their college roommate or relative.

3. Friend/relative is horribly inexperienced and builds a pile of crap.

4. Said pile of crap nevertheless gets market traction.

5. Customers complain of endless bugs & sales want long list of features.

6. Friend/relative is promoted to CTO. Time to hire experienced devs!

7. Experienced devs say "this is a pile of crap, throw it away and start over".

8. Founders tell devs no, you have to fix bugs and add features. Hop to it.

9. Developers have no leeway or political capital to fix the underlying problems, do what they can, and eventually leave.

So it's more akin to an 18 year old with a gambling habit who has just discovered payday loans.