It is becoming increasingly common for residents to concentrate in urban areas, rather than the countryside. In my opinion, this is a decidedly negative phenomenon for human society as a whole despite the economic benefits.
Those who support the current prioritization of city life point out how it positively impacts the workforce. When the majority of a population is concentrated, this makes it easier for businesses to operate. For example, in cities such as Tokyo, there are millions of residents in the city itself and the outlying districts. The people support restaurants, cinemas, malls, arcades, parks, and various other recreational areas. These businesses in turn provide jobs for locals and this creates a positive feedback loop and greatly enriches the quality of life for the average person living in a big city. The best evidence for this is the number of people willing to move to cities for superior employment options.
However, the drawbacks associated with city lifestyles are more significant. In past generations, there was greater diversity in terms of where residents lived that enabled more varied lifestyle options. People living in the country were more likely to work outdoors and possess skills related to farming, hunting, and raising livestock. Today, most people live in cities and work corporate jobs and are experts in terms of marketing, finance, business, and customer service. These industries have a place in a healthy society but should not predominate over healthier, more active forms of gainful employment. As the world continues to transition to online-based jobs, the situation will only worsen.
In conclusion, although there are legitimate economic arguments to be made for urban migration, I would argue the effects on how humans live are overwhelmingly negative. Governments should therefore implement policies to encourage more rural infrastructure and economic activity.