I mean the perspective projection you get from a 70-120 zoom at 90mm should be the same as the one from a 90mm prime
(This is an interesting point of contention, because conventional wisdom up until a few years ago was exactly what you said, and relaying what GP said got you tarred and feathered as an imbecile in the usual "photog forums". It's also one of these things which were never in doubt at all, and are very easy to check for yourself.)
There are some situations where "zooming with your feet" is the right answer and others where it is impossible. Try everything.
Zoom With Your Feet and other photography minimalist cliches seem to me kind of mystifying, and more interested in a kind of romantic vision of photography than in technical excellence
Cropping in post is identical to digital zoom and will not change parallax and of course reduce resolution (which neither of the above will do)
All three give quite different results and of course are viable methods depending on what your intended outcome is
That point-vs-counterpoint is leaving out a critical difference between cropping vs zoom-with-your-feet: the geometric relation between the foreground and background objects will change.
Cropping is more comparable to a post-processing version of "zoom magnification" at the expense of pixel resolution. Or flipped around, zoom lenses can be thought of as in-camera "cropping" with max pixel resolution but at the expense of crop boundaries being irreversible. The geometric relations between objects are still the same if your feet don't move in both cases.
Zooming with the feet alters how the background looks in relation to the foreground subject -- which may not be your artistic intention. Examples:
https://www.slrlounge.com/glossary/compression-definition-ph...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_zoom
In other words, "zoom with your feet" may get you the wrong composition.