The meme of a living wage is a nice one. It hits most moral frameworks as fair. The concern I have with it is it isn't defined.
What does living mean? When I belonged to a high demand religion that is known for "helping" its membership, financial assistance was dedicated to the preservation of life only. Not the preservation or growth of the quality of life. So if you had a medical life transition and a mortgage, they might pay for you to dump the mortgage and move to a tiny apartment while also receiving some food pantry items on a semi-regular frequency. Their goal was to keep you alive, not to give you a living. At the time, excess bills like cell phones, internet, cars, etc. were recommended to be removed and/or deducted from assistance given (in urban areas; rural areas cars were not really a focus, there was some autonomy in the people making the decisions). Only what was needed to remain alive.
I bring this up not because I necessarily agree with the approach, but rather to ask what we mean by "living" wage. The typical idea is that it allows people to afford food, shelter, and basic necessities (cue tangent discussion regarding American healthcare). Under this definition, are people willing to bunk up six to a room and expand WIC/SNAP? Because that is what a "living" wage can be -- not a great existence but not dying while working full time.
The usual excuse for this Spartan approach is that there aren't enough resources. For current program funding levels this is true. And in the US, we keep shooting ourselves in the foot for further resource growth -- regulations and policies are continually cherry picked, unprotected, and embattled to the point that the cost burden to maintain even the status quo is overwhelming, whether in implementation (NIMBYism) or in infrastructure (environmental impact studies taking years and decades) or in ideals (protecting water and air via the EPA).
Ideally we could organize, right? Unionize, make our collective voices heard. While a wonderful thing to enable, and there are many great outcomes when it happens, unions are subject to corruption as well -- I am not sure there is a legal framework that helps overcome that particularly pernicious principal/agent problem.
So, in this brief review, we arrive to your same conclusion, that we structurally probably can't support every job having a high enough wage to satisfy each to their wants. We can hope and want and organize for it, but until we have some significant structural changes in society and policy it seems unattainable to me :(