> Why do we always say that we need a safety net when we interact with these sorts of businesses all the time? My two hypotheses, purely from personal experien

> Why do we always say that we need a safety net when we interact with these sorts of businesses all the time? My two hypotheses, purely from personal experience, not at all based upon any valid statistical data. YMMV, freely-given opinions worth what you paid for it, etc. Immigrants likely have not yet grown up in the kind of media-pumped, over-saturated hyper-aware-of-health-factors as developed-nation (especially US) native-born citizens. If this hypothesis is correct, then native-born would have an exaggerated sense of risks, while immigrants have a more proportionate sense tempered by their lives' constraints (making do without what native-born would consider necessary safety nets). Native-born citizens might statistically be unhealthier than immigrants. Immigrants are a self-selecting group who are statistically going to exhibit certain degrees of greater perseverance than the wider population. This perseverance could be a contributing factor in diet choices, a major contributor to the rising poor health outcomes in native-born populations in the US. If so, then the immigrant group might not feel as much pressure to secure the safety net as the native-born population. Most diet choices in the US are unhealthy. Like very poor nutrient:calorie ratios, excessively high portions, or encouraging poor convenience-oriented habits over selecting and preparing whole foods closer to raw than processed. All only possible with the kind of extravagant energy per capita spent in the US that are not generally available in the nations immigrants tend to come from, leading to catastrophic US general population health outcomes.