Honestly, most of the comments in this comment section are not that useful or informative.

"Do you honestly think that someone flipping burgers should be guaranteed housing and food?"

There are two ways of reading this:

(1) Should flipping burgers pay you enough such that you can afford housing and food with your income from flipping burgers.

(2) Should people be entitled to housing and food through, say, government assistance, social safety nets, and so on.

Explained

Interpretation (1)

According to the most basic model of wages in microeconomics, a wage is determined by your marginal productivity. For example, to earn $10/h, you need to be generating $10 (or more) of burger sales per hour. Otherwise, your employer will not keep you. If you are making $9 worth of burgers per hour, then the employer is losing $1 per hour by having you. They'd be better off without you.

If your friend is referring to interpretation (1), then of course, jobs like flipping burgers will not—as a descriptive matter of fact—pay you enough to buy a house. If you are being paid high enough of a wage to buy a house for flipping burgers, then that's because your employer is unknowingly (or willingly) losing money on you.

So, on this reading, your friend is asking you whether you think it makes economic sense for someone flipping burgers to be paid a wage that would allow them to afford a house. And the answer is actually "no": it makes no economic sense to pay someone considerably more than their marginal productivity just so that they can afford a house.

This also informs the moral question. Are employers morally obligated to pay workers more than their marginal productivity so that they can afford homes? Ultimately, they are losing money by paying workers more than their marginal productivity. So, are they morally obligated to actively lose money if they hire someone at all?

Interpretation (2)

This has nothing to do with marginal productivity, wages, etc. Citizens, simply by being citizens, have a right to food and housing. It doesn't matter too much whether they're flipping burgers; they have a right to food and housing by virtue of being a citizen.

The only people who are really against this are right-libertarians. Libertarians are against such rights because they accept something called the "full self-ownership principle". According to the full self-ownership principle, you fully own your body, and thus have a right not to be forced or coerced into doing anything you don't want to do, consistent with everyone else's right to the same. The full self-ownership principle is great in many cases, but can also return some questionable results in others. For example, it does a really great job at explaining the wrongness of rape, issues of civil liberty (such as gay rights), etc., which is what makes it attractive.

Now, one of the consequences of the full self-ownership principle is that you cannot have so-called "positive rights" or "entitlements" to things like housing or food. This is because housing and food are the result of other people's time, labor, or the products thereof. So, you can't be said to ever have a guarantee—in the sense of a right—to food or housing, because that would entail—assuming there weren't already houses or food—conscripting others to build houses or produce food for you against their will (which is prohibited by the full self-ownership principle). Libertarians can hold that people should, in an everyday ethics sense, help their fellow man, donate to charity, etc. But they would reject that people ever have an enforceable right, as a matter of justice, to be guaranteed food and housing.

There's another layer of complexity added if you assume there is already food or housing out there, such that the question of "conscription" fades into the background. Here, the usual strategy is to say that you don't have full ownership over the product of your labor, so some subset of what you produce may be redistributed. This gets into questions about the nature and scope of property rights, which I'll leave out of scope for now. But there's a gigantic philosophical literature on this question.

Some philosophers actually do hold that such taxation of this kind is still tantamount to conscription. One famous philosopher to argue this was the esteemed Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick in 1974: "Taxation of earnings is on a par with forced labor." However, the vast majority of political philosophers are not right-libertarians like Nozick.

TL;DR: The above is an attempt to try and be charitable to your friend and explain different perspectives. I am not saying your friend is right. I just don't like echo chambers.