Yes and no. In a vacuum it would be nice if goods generally seen as consumer necessities with lower price sensitivity (people need to buy food regardless of price) stayed cheap, but I think the received understanding in mainstream economics is that we can’t just lower food prices without also lowering other prices—and that lowering prices across the board is going to be a sign of deflation which will change consumption habits and potentially exacerbate other economic issues.

I’m not defending this view, but just trying to frame that I think the general view of economists is that grocery deflation is probably going to be inevitably linked to other falling prices which, as a whole, is a concern

This is also important in the context of investment. The general understanding is that even if input costs are falling (i.e., land, lumber, labor), why would anybody invest in new housing construction if deflation is going to mean the sale price is lower than the cost? At a macro level deflation means that your money increases in value without taking on any risk so instead of investing in the market or a potential new venture, just hold on to it and it’s be more valuable without the change that the stock declines or the venture goes belly up.

The concise framing of this is that “a dollar today is worth more than a dollar in the future” because of inflation so you should invest to, at minimum, keep buying power in real terms constant. But with deflation this is not true so business sees simply hoarding capital as a safer bet than deploying it into things that theoretically create job and drive growth/prosperity since a dollar tomorrow will be more valuable than today.