But by forcing out people who cannot afford the water you are driving out essentially only lower-class people which is unrealistic. More problematically, these are specifically people for whom moving is more difficult since they lack the financial resources which makes moving possible.
"But by forcing out people who cannot afford the water you are driving out essentially only lower-class people which is unrealistic."
Remember, we're already talking about an "unrealistic" situation. In real life, the price of water is orders of magnitude away from pricing people out of being able to drink. You should expect a world where that is not true to be substantially different from this one, and uncritically examined shortcuts used to think about morality, such as simplified "class warfare" narratives with dubious applicability even to the world as it stands today, may need to be reconsidered. (In either direction, after all; what is today a minor problem could in this world be a "start the revolution!" crisis. Hard to tell; we're a long ways away from this and there's many paths from here to there.)
What's the alternative? Force these people to stay in this place where the water is too expensive to drink? How is that any better than moving to somewhere where it isn't? (How did we get to that point in the first place? After all the meta-point here is that the whole conversation is completely disconnected from reality and was showboating to start with.)
