I think the basic issue is: people will disagree vehemently about what "enough to live is", and so your sentiment, while well-meaning, becomes an empty platitude in public discourse.
It'd be a decent start. Yes, America's destitute have enough food, and yes, the "enough-to live" line is arbitrary: if you're poor in France, the government will provide you with a computer and an internet connection. I'd be happy to have a debate about whether we as a society want to pay for something like that.
But providing all citizens with basic shelter and healthcare should be non-negotiable in the richest nation on earth.
Even if "enough to live" is greater than the value they generate?
If paired with robust social safety nets, we can absolutely require jobs to pay a living wage.
I firmly believe that any currently "unskilled" worker can re-tool and become much more productive if given the opportunity.
A full-time worker deserves to be paid enough to live, period. Unskilled or not. They deserve a roof over their head, food on the table, and basic healthcare. Cost of living varies greatly based on locale, and comparing that number to the poverty wage in Bangladesh is what the invisible hand does, yes, but it's absolutely not what's fair or what's deserved.