This is an interesting perspective but it only applies in cases where the use case doesn't already exist. For example, shoes are exempt. Another example I like is wood working tools. I need to cut wood in a certain way; buying a miter saw (while requiring a bit of setup and on boarding) has a net negative "second price" given I'm already committed to replacing every baseboard in my house.
But I like the author's perspective, so I agree that we should at least consider the second price and prioritize purchase of items for which it is negative.
Shoes aren't exempt though. You're just paying the price as soon as you start wearing them. If you have only one pair of shoes, that's every day. But there are a lot of people with more than one pair of shoe, for different occasions, and many unworn pairs of shoes around.
But I like the author's perspective, so I agree that we should at least consider the second price and prioritize purchase of items for which it is negative.