If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you, or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place. Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.
(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example, housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)
in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address ... it can be very hard to get back out of it
True, if you are relying on government/social programs to get you out. Such programs tend to keep you in your bad situation, as doing so perpetuates the survival of the social program and its budget.
There are examples of people who have experimentally, deliberately put themselves in such circumstances and worked their way out in a relatively short time.
I've seen the latter examples, but am skeptical of them as evidence. They seem to be people who do have safety nets, from middle-class or upper-middle-class families, doing it as a sort of game so they can blog about it, with a bail-out option available at any time.
The U.S. social programs do seem particularly poorly managed compared to most first-world countries, especially because they aren't integrated or at all set up for rapid but temporary assistance.
Here in Denmark (I'm American, but moved), the social programs are much more responsive on both ends: they are fast to get into, and intended to provide a path out. A social worker can get you into a rented apartment paid for by a housing-assistance program this week, possibly even on the same day—not next year—so you're instantly off the streets, with a regular mailing address. Together with that, you'll also have job-placement assistance, internship opportunities, and generally a support network intended to get you paying your own rent in short order. So the assistance is fast but intended to be temporary, and generally works well for most people who temporarily find themselves in dire straits. The main exceptions are people with psychiatric problems or drug addictions, who are treated separately.
If you come from a middle-class family that can provide a safety net for you, or live in a social-democratic country that provides a safety-net for everyone, then yes; you end up with some unpleasant months and get back on your feet. But in the U.S. you can end up in some pretty bad situations, perhaps homeless, and lacking things such as internet access, nice clothes, or a permanent address that are very useful for getting jobs or otherwise making money. If you end up in that kind of position, it can be very hard to get back out of it, so most people, especially from less-well-off backgrounds, put a large premium on minimizing the risk of getting into it in the first place. Hence, a preference for "safe" jobs at larger companies.
(Part of the problem is that what does exist of a safety net in the U.S. moves at a glacial pace, and is geared towards chronically poor people. For example, housing assistance programs typically have years-long waiting lists, so they serve the exact opposite use-case from the person who needs a place to live ASAP, but only for a few months until they can pay their own rent again.)