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?
