They're a cost center and not a revenue generator.
When you've got a group that provides no measurable revenue they will always be at a disadvantage to the group that provides the money train. This is why you see a systematic de-valuing of tools and iteration improvement despite the massive gains they provide.
Deleted comment
I guess it's a matter of mindset, if you think to make tools which address the issue at hand, you'll end up as a cost center; if you think of products to solve the class of problems the issue belongs to, then you'll be adding value to the company as well as improving effectiveness.
Tools aren't a money sink, they are a competitive advantage. Effort put into tools isn't a loss, it's an investment.
It is unfortunate, but the reality of our profession is that tools/infrastructure work always has an uphill battle when it comes to justifying engineering time. It's something we all have to fight for when appropriate, and discussing why and how to do that can be super useful.
Working on tools and infrastructure is by definition time spent making things that will help us make things to make money. The people paying us usually would much rather have us spend time making things to make money, rather than making things to make things to make money. If there's not enough trust between the engineer and the nontechnical manager/investor/whatever, it can be hard to get buy-in for time and money spent making something which is essentially an IOU for hypothetical returns later on. Build that trust and have great ideas and hopefully resources can be directed towards indirect (tools/infrastructure/whatever) engineering expenses.
It is always an uphill battle though, I think it's just the nature of the industry, or at least most companies. :( I'm not bitter though, because it really is totally rational if you look at it from the perspective of the stakeholder who would have to approve it. Just part of the professional landscape to be aware of.