Originally posted by LazerLordz:
Sometimes, it's about mitigation of risks. Eliminate as many probabilities of danger.
Versus cost of mitigating the risks.
For example, if you're working as a lowly-paid worker on a countryside, and there's mainly two places you can get food from - a high class restaurant, costing $100 per meal, and the unhygenic food hawkers that sells plates of noodles for $1 each. Even though you're much more likely to get a food poisoning with the latter, you would be unable to afford to eat at the restaurant on a daily basis. Besides, even if he does fall sick eating it, he'll probably only lose a day's work plus the doctor's fee, which wouldn't sum up to $100.
On the other hand, we've the not-so-exotic tourist visiting the countryside. There would be many push factors for him/her to go for the restaurant like cancellation of the few-hundreds dollar trip if he/she fell sick, hawker food taste bad etc. And it's not as if he/she will be paying $100 for each meal in the years to come.
Face it. It's the reality. I mean, which guy doesn't want to cuddle their gals in safety and protect her from danger, if they have a choice? If you say, work harder so that I can afford the additional cab fares, I would say, work harder so that I can provide her a better life. Work harder so that I can have more time with her.
So, tell me, which is more likely for a punk to lose his gal - dying in a motorbike accident, or telling her that you've spent all the money for the wedding ring on the cab rides?