It seems like there are 2 things that can be done:
1) Make it easier for new firms of all kinds to open and create job. (Less occupational licensing requirements, etc)
2) Reduce the cost/burden of employment. (If someone has the choice to hire an employee in SF and Texas, they'll choose Texas since the laws are more business-friendly)
For #2, if by "business friendly", you mean anti-employee. Despite all this hoopla about California being "business unfriendly", it still leads in startups and innovation. Mainly because a lot of the talent wants to be in a place where they have freedoms, and don't have to worry about business taking their work done on off hours.
At an extreme it is. (The buckets aren't so black and white)
Look at France. The costs of firing employees is so high, that companies on the margin choose to hire elsewhere. They only hire after extensively validating the employee. It's much harder to convince an employer to "give me a shot" because they can't back out of the decision easily. It helps the employees already hired, but hurts the ecosystems.
Other laws which force good behavior on everyone at a relatively low cost can help the ecosystem. (Voiding non-competes is one, getting rid of child labor is another)
Somewhat. But there's friction from moving jobs around.
An oversimplified way to view it...
Let's say I can get $100/hour of value out of an employee. As long as I can get $100/hour of value from them, I'll hire them. Now let's say that there is $10 of regulatory burden. (Hard to fire, etc) Then I'd need $110/value to hire someone. Now let's say it costs me $5/hour in communications overhead for people out of town.
Then we have 3 scenarios:
1) $110+ in value - I can hire in either place. I prefer the HQ if the resource in CA is $5/hour cheaper. (Or measurably better)
2) $100-$105 in value - I hire in the other place.
3) Up to $105 in value - No hiring.
Lowering the regulatory burden to less than $5/hour adds to the amount of jobs people have.
Note - it's never really this simple, but it illustrates the idea that someone has to bear additional costs. When the employer and employee split it, relationships that used to net out with higher employment can end with higher unemployment.
We did a scenario planning project where you put together human trends and factors to try and predict several versions of the future 10 years from now.
In one of our scenarios was a future where humans bounced from job to job (high turnover, low unemployment) and skills-based education was cheap and easily accessible. Some of the factors leading to this was the "established"-education bubble bursting, increased automation, and less desire for consumers to own assets while still having access to them (variable sharing economy).
A #2 type of future might not be that unrealistic.
I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but a race to the bottom among municipalities and states to try and attract businesses is already happening and has been for some time. My point is that this won't actually solve the problem posed so much as redirect it somewhere else.
#2 solution isn't about moving existing jobs, it's about lowering the barrier to entry for new jobs, since demand isn't fixed and variability will increase.
You will always have tug-of-wars between municipalities (e.g. Applebee's HQ between Missouri and Kansas) - but businesses in states or munis with a low barrier to entry for new jobs can fulfill and capitalize on variable demand faster.
If Texas offers me some really sweet incentives so I go and establish my business there (or move an existing one there) instead of California I haven't exactly created twice as many jobs as I would have otherwise, have I?
Or 3) Since automation is making capital more productive at the expense of labor--tax a portion of the productivity increase and distribute it to labor.
1) Make it easier for new firms of all kinds to open and create job. (Less occupational licensing requirements, etc)
2) Reduce the cost/burden of employment. (If someone has the choice to hire an employee in SF and Texas, they'll choose Texas since the laws are more business-friendly)