Fine, let’s take it for granted that you don’t want to all of it. But the clear implication of saying that people aren’t paying their fair share is that they ge

Fine, let’s take it for granted that you don’t want to all of it. But the clear implication of saying that people aren’t paying their fair share is that they generally should. So your ideal may not be 0, but it is (even by your own analogy), close to 0. It’s like saying the goal is to end fraud, and you bring up the technicality that actually the cost of ending all fraud is not worth it. Ok, but the ideal is still no fraud, and nobody is confused about the general goal being to get rid of as much of it as we can cost effectively. So now I’m honestly asking, are you or are you not arguing that the general goal is to end people "not paying their fair share” (which you equate to living outside of the city you work in)? Also can you please explain why you believe that “fair” is measurable in this way? Can you give another example of something where a common person would use a similar definition of fair? I think that your definition of fair means stores without dynamic pricing are unfair, which seems crazy to me.