Though if you're talking about the lower bound for calling one's work "software engineering" you have a point, I think it's reasonable to expect some best practices from experienced developers. One problem seems to be how easy it is to underestimate the cost of bad software and what it takes to produce good quality. This reminds me a bit of the wildly inconsistent quality of CGI effects in today's movies, which is often the result of late changes and in turn insane deadlines, to some people VFX is magic anyway so why can't it also magically be done faster?
And a more subtle question: what happens below the acceptability theshold? It doesn't seem that acceptability can be driven up costlessly at zero time investment, so what this means is either "less software is produced" or "software is more expensive".
(We see a version of this with the app stores, which enforce a really crude "quality filter" by banning apps)
Unfortunately high quality software tends to be so much more expensive in various ways that almost nobody bothers. Which is understandable, but in some cases still unacceptable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about open source software, those developers don't owe me anything and often produce better results anyway.
It's a double-edged sword because certifications are complex and sometimes expensive (e.g. FIPS certification for encryption), so smaller software companies have a hard time competing, potentially leading to more quasi-monopolies and cartels.