hm... because it's alternate-scenario generation in the past tense... there's really not a way to "prove" it. Maybe Superman could have saved every company and doubled the workforce while also doubling everyone's pay and inventing the better mousetrap. The "fired v hired" measure is also faulty - sometimes companies need to get rid of unproductive venues in order to survive. The issue there is not whether or not the venue can make it, it's whether or not the company can.
Claiming that every firing is somehow evil or malignant is like lumping the surgeon with the serial murderer because both cut off limbs. Romney tended to save the companies (and with them, the jobs) that could be saved, and gave them a better fighting chance than they otherwise would have had.
“If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures.”
- Alexander Hamilton. Spiritual father of #NeverTrump
So Did Romney Create 100,000 Jobs, Or Not? - Forbes
But we do know for a fact that he had one of the worst job creation records in the country when he served as governor (47th out of 50).
"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-- Adam Smith
Ann Romney seems like a nice person, but I doubt she understands the worries that plague a lot of women about money, given her station in life.