Wow - I read the article, actually, and tried to avoid losing IQ points during the process. They are under the impression that jobs simply moved outside of their jurisdiction inside of being permanent job losses. By saying this, they claim this is still a great idea if implemented statewide or nationally!
They cite no evidence of any kind to support this hypothesis. None. I would content, the more likely result was permanent job loss, not relocation. Business layoff - those are permanent. Business close - those are permanent.
No evidence that businesses shut-down and then spent the money to built a new location outside the jurisdiction. None.
Think about the idiocy of this logic.
Their policies cause their own residents to lose jobs.
But that is okay because those jobs MIGHT be recreated in another locale where the politicians haven't instituted the same short sighted job killing policies.
And there are basic flaws in their theory of jobs just being relocated.
One flaw is that for some types of businesses the customer base stays where it is.
If you operate a restaurant or other business that survives on providing a face-to-face service for the city population your customers aren't going to follow you out into the suburbs or to a small town in the far reaches of the county.
Another flaw is that the skilled workers you require might not be available or plentiful if you move to another location.
If you manufacture cat towers to sell over the internet you can probably move your business outside the city limits, hire new help and still function.
But if you operate a business that relies on a set of specificly skilled employees it isn't likely that you will easily find skilled replacements in other locations.