The insecurity and stress are the human condition, my friend. That's what it means to be sentient.
Let me rephrase my original post: "We all die someday — and potentially sooner than you expect. There's no guarantee that any particular person will survive the next 24 hours. Even living in a bunker in the middle of nowhere, you could still have a heart attack!"
This is entirely distinct from the question of whether you should advocate for societal policies that make quality-of-life more robust/fault-tolerant to small upsets. I'm all for that.
My point is more that even if you do achieve a social-welfare utopia, you'll still likely be insecure and stressed, because mortality.
And, therefore, "insecurity" and "stress" aren't good indicators of anything other than having an overriding awareness of one's own mortality. So it's not sensible to base policy decisions on trying to lower them. Base your policy positions on rational utility-maximization, not on trying to achieve personal emotional well-being. You want emotional well-being? Go to therapy.
We (theoretically) have control to improve and enhance workers' rights, and can make legislative changes to increase job security, or decouple the ability to live and subsist with employment.