Migration from rural areas to major cities has accelerated as people pursue employment, education, and reliable healthcare services. In my opinion, although this movement generates visible pressures, it is broadly beneficial because it widens the employment opportunities and social mobility of rural people. Indeed, the costs of migration are tangible but manageable through policy, while the benefits for urban life are structural and long-term. Historically, this urbanisation and rural-to-urban movement has underpinned national development.

First, urban concentration lifts productivity by matching skills with employment and workers with modern infrastructure in cities. Specifically, large cities provide diversified jobs, higher living standards, and rapid education for people through proximity and competition. For instance, a rural graduate entering a metropolitan city can access specialised training and career networks, raising lifetime earnings and improving their livelihood and life.

However, opponents contend that rural depopulation erodes the countryside community and that megacities face congestion, housing shortages, and inequality. Admittedly, these concerns about urban areas are legitimate, but they stem mainly from governance failures rather than migration itself. Moreover, targeted investment in regional connectivity, healthcare and affordable housing can ease urban congestion, while remittances help reinvigorate the rural countryside and its livelihood.

Overall, moving from rural areas to big cities is more good than bad because it unlocks career advancement and long-term growth for people. Therefore, with supportive policy, cities can absorb rural newcomers productively and share employment gains across society. Ultimately, the appropriate response is not to resist this migration, but to manage urbanisation so both urban and rural life can prosper together.