> minimum wages should be set so that someone who is working full time (~40 hours/week) should be getting enough income so that they can afford a modest standard of living for themselves and a family too

Can I ask... Why? Shouldn't a "minimum" wage provide a "minimal" lifestyle rather than a modest lifestyle? And why should one be able to support a family on a single minimum wage?

"modest" doesn't mean driving Teslas and eating out every night.

It means being able to afford the basics: housing, food, healthcare, transport, and still being able to have enough left over to build a 'rainy day' (emergency) fund.

And the reason "modest" rather than "minimal" is because one is living, the other is effective slavery.

People who cannot afford for one moment to stop are people who are on the edge of disaster. Any (additional) misfortune that strikes - whether by their own actions or not - could send them from "surviving" to now being forced into debt, which while it might provide temporary relief, almost certainly means they are now in a downward cycle.

With a living wage, even if misfortune does drive them into debt - there's at least a better opportunity for them to work their way out.

Because single mothers exist, so supporting a family on one income is needed to ensure a minimal amount of suffering happens to children who didn't ask to be poor, and have no way of opting out of poverty.

Also, modest = minimal by the original standards.

Historical context: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/minimum_wage

It's much better to identify single mothers and make sure their kids are OK with welfare than make the national minimum wage enough to do so.

Better for whom?

Better for the people paying the wages and the other consumers of those people's goods and services, and for workers who are employable only at particularly low wages.