That (if it happened on a national scale) would increase the revenue of the companies that got that money, which would help them do better, which would lead to moe jobs.
That last part is what I'm slowly realizing is the fallacious part of the argument. From my experience, if companies get more revenue, they don't automatically use that to hire more workers. They don't even necessarily use it to upgrade equipment and facilities, which would at least indirectly generate jobs. Instead, more often than not they seem to sink it into a tax haven offshore, or they pass it along to the shareholders.
Companies have realized that they don't need to ramp up staffing to get more productive. They can squeeze existing staff by making them scared shitless to lose their jobs. People have a surprising tendency to start "giving that 110%" when they're trying to avoid the axe.
This is especially true in non-manufacturing jobs, where it's not a matter of "X workers can create Y product in Z amount of time". In a classic equation, if you want to increase your output in the same time constraint, adding workers was the only real option. But in an information-based economy, it's "How many projects can you handle simultaneously?". Used to be, you might have one or two things on your plate at one time, and you could devote your attention to them. Now, everyone is expected to be a multitasking fiend who puts in 80 hours a week on salary, because you need 90 to really do the job right. Americans are literally working themselves to death and/or burnout.
Case in point: HP has had multiple consecutive quarters (as in, a few years now) where the quarterly profit has been over a
billion dollars. HP Employees have had a salary freeze in place for about three years now. We're not even getting COLA. And most units have either a total hiring freeze or at least strong corporate resistance towards increasing payrolls.