IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

The Koch brothers graph

Several people wrote and/or tweeted after last night's show looking for the source data on the chart above showing the relationship between the Koch brothers' n
The Koch brothers graph
The Koch brothers graph

Several people wrote and/or tweeted after last night's show looking for the source data on the chart above showing the relationship between the Koch brothers' net worth and the number of people they employ. I didn't have a single link for it in the links list because I couldn't find a single source for the information. Luckily, however, I do have the advantage of a single secondary source. I walked over and asked Mike Yarvitz who produced the segment.

The net worth of the Koch "job creators" comes from the individual profiles of the Forbes 400 list, with the worth of each brother added together. We took just the October number for each year.

The employee number comes for different souces depending on the year but basically the source is Koch Industries itself. In their current company description they say, "With a presence in nearly 60 countries and about 67,000 employees..." So that's where the 67,000 number comes from for 2011 on the chart. But the 2007 number comes from this 2007 Forbes profile of Koch Industries in which they are ascribed 80,000 employees.

And so we see that the net wealth of the Koch brothers has grown, but that wealth has not trickled down in the form of job creation at their company.

UPDATE: I forgot to add the ExxonMobil chart that was also in that segment. I do have it. Give me a few minutes and I'll upload it.

OK, here it is:

The Koch brothers graph
The Koch brothers graph

One more: Sorry to keep adding notes to this post, but I wanted to point out that I did change the title. In an effort to be clever I unintentionally made a sexual innuendo, so I switched it to something basic.

Also, this was not our first use of the ExxonMobil stats. We used it back in March and I feel like it came up once before that, but I'm not finding any earlier uses in a search.