I've also experienced this in many companies. It has led me to question if tests are actually a good thing. The goal is never to write perfect code, the goal is to ship a product and many companies does this fine without testing.
Are we actually doing things too complicated and too good for the business case?
I think the key is, how bad is it if a defect gets through? And what kinds of measures (unit tests, functional tests by QA, etc.) will best prevent it? If you're making software that is fairly low-stakes, maybe it's not necessary to have any tests. If you can quickly see if there's a problem, and easily roll back, maybe tests are not necessary. If it's hard (or impossible) to really test the things that are most likely to break, maybe tests are just a placebo in that case and you shouldn't bother.
But the OP's description of his job doesn't seem to fall into any of those cases. Quite the opposite, I'd guess.
Are we actually doing things too complicated and too good for the business case?