Not an economist, but I believe that statement needs to be indexed to inflation/deflation. Lower prices relative to income, in other words higher purchasing power, is good. But you can't inflate/deflate your way to lower real production costs or higher wages.
prices of computers and electronics are always dropping due to technology improvements
Right, the electronics market is in some senses an example of the behavior of a deflationary market, but it is also different than prices dropping due to financial wizardry.
Would you prefer the alternative, that technology improvements stop
In many parts of the market, improvements have stopped. Continuing improvement is clearly best, but not always an option. A gallon of milk or a shovel isn't getting any better next year. So what then?
Technology hasn't stopped in agriculture. For example, there are automatic milking machines [1], and there's a well-funded startup that wants to grow lettuce in warehouses built near distribution centers [2].
I wouldn't expect the price of milk to change much in the short term. In the long run, who knows? Maybe biotech improvements will mean we don't need cows?
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/nyregion/with-farm-roboti... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-09-06/this-high...
But this doesn't seem like a bad thing. Would you prefer the alternative, that technology improvements stop and computers become more expensive, so they become good investments? And people do still seem to buy lots of electronics even though they don't hold their value.
Generally speaking, lower prices are better. There are only a few exceptions such fossil fuels and cigarettes where you can say cheaper is worse, due to externalities.
To be sure, if tomorrow a magical new technology gave us free, clean energy, health care, or housing, this would be a tremendous financial shock. Many investments would be worthless. But this is because it's a big, sudden change, not because it's inherently bad. A more gradual decrease in prices is a good thing.