首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 商潮 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

油价突破每桶100美元,给美国中产阶层带来重压

Katica Roy
2026-04-26

IMF指出,本轮能源冲击已打断美国经济的稳步增长轨迹。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

2026年3月25日(周三),在加利福尼亚州洛杉矶市阿拉米达唐人街附近的一家雪佛龙加油站,一名顾客刚加完油。该站普通汽油售价为每加仑8.29美元。图片来源:Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

面对油价冲击,华尔街追问其对通胀、美联储政策及能源股的影响。而普通家庭关心的却是截然不同的问题:这个月该如何实现收支平衡?

这正是当下分析的关键短板。

中东地缘政治冲突,正不断掏空美国人的钱包。原油价格重回每桶100美元以上,全美汽油均价近期突破每加仑4美元,国际货币基金组织(IMF)在春季会议上发布了一份一针见血的评估报告。该机构指出,本轮能源冲击已打断美国经济的稳步增长轨迹。该机构下调了美国产出预期,并指出这场危机将显著削弱消费者的购买力。

即便如此,官方评论仍常将本轮高价周期描述为“暂时性现象”。但“暂时”一词不过是官方话术,并不能用来形容普通家庭面临的现实情况。

政府可以发行国债。企业可以转嫁成本、争取缓冲时间或裁员降本。中产阶级家庭却别无选择。他们无法通过发行债券来抵御冲击,只能依靠现金流、信用卡,甚至耗尽储蓄来硬撑。

这就是为何这绝不仅是油价问题,而是美国中产阶级被迫面对的“追加保证金”时刻。

消费支出占美国GDP的近70%。这意味着美国经济本质上由家庭消费驱动。而从历史数据来看,美国家庭的偿付能力主要靠女性支撑。1979年至2018年间,美国中产阶级收入增长的绝大部分来自女性收入及其劳动时长的增加。若剔除女性的贡献,过去四十年中产阶级收入基本上陷入停滞。

与此同时,美国国债规模已突破39万亿美元,这使得美国政府高度依赖持续的劳动力参与率和税收收入,才能避免财政状况进一步恶化。

因此,油价飙升之际,真正的问题绝非只是标题消费者价格指数(CPI)是否走高(事实是,2026年3月消费者价格指数已升至3.3%),更在于:当国家的核心增长引擎本就处于财务紧绷状态时,若再对出行、物流、食品、公用事业及照护服务加征新税,将会引发何种后果。

因为持续油价冲击,本质上就是向抗风险能力最弱的家庭征收累退税。

冲击传导链条

油价对家庭的冲击从来不是一次性事件,而是分五个阶段层层传导、反复施压。

首先,汽油涨价直接推高上班族的通勤成本。其次,柴油价格飙升向货运与农业端传导,数月后便会给家庭食品杂货开支带来第二轮冲击,天然气价格与化肥成本飙升,正是这一传导效应的直接体现。第三,石化产品成本上升,推高日常家居用品价格。第四,服务商被迫将高昂的公用事业和运输成本直接转嫁给消费者。最后,在这些刚性支出的挤压下,家庭只能缩减其他所有开支,这将直接拖累GDP增长。

我们对这一连锁反应再熟悉不过,因为刚刚经历过。2022年能源危机期间,油价一度飙升至每桶120美元以上。短短数月,食品杂货通胀率飙至13.5%,创下40年新高,实际平均时薪下降3.1%,为填补这一缺口,消费者信用卡债务激增15.2%,创下历史纪录。

“哑铃型经济”的结构性脆弱

这段历史恰恰印证了本轮冲击背后的结构性风险。美国人正身处“哑铃型经济”之中。

哑铃顶端的高净值家庭安然无虞:即便每月在燃料和食品杂货上多支出数百美元,也无需改变生活方式。哑铃底端人群虽面临财务压力,但政策制定者至少能察觉到这一状况,因为社会保障网的覆盖对象,正是这一群体。

承受最大压力的正是哑铃中间的群体:教师、护士、项目经理,以及双职工家庭。他们收入不低,因而无法申领社会救助,却又远不足以抵御外部冲击。在本轮能源冲击到来之前,累计通胀已迫使科罗拉多州普通家庭,自2020年以来为维持原有生活水平多支出近4.1万美元——这笔“通胀税”的涨幅远超普通劳动者的薪资增速,使得他们在新一轮油价飙升面前没有任何缓冲余地。

如今的美国中产阶级已然处于零缓冲状态,收入所得尽数用于刚性支出,根本无从灵活支配。

只有理解了这种底层的脆弱性,才能明白能源冲击如何引发系统性偿付风险。当宏观经济的收支出现失衡,填补缺口的重担便落在了普通家庭身上;而在美国,最终承受冲击的往往是女性。

“退出劳动力市场”的迷思

经济评论中常有一种假设:当工作成本过高时,女性会选择退出劳动力市场。但这种说法忽略了现代家庭的收支现状。数百万女性根本没有“退出”的资格。

在美国有18岁以下子女的家庭中,40%以母亲为经济支柱。此外,在超70%的此类家庭中,母亲的收入对维持家庭偿付能力至关重要。

她的薪水绝非“补充收入”,而是避免财务破产的结构性屏障。

当油价冲击来袭时,这些女性根本不可能退出劳动力市场。在经济压力下,她们陷入了结构性困境:为了生计必须继续工作,但工作的成本却突然大幅攀升。

为填补缺口,她们只能独自承受冲击:靠年化利率高达22%的循环信贷来支付被柴油涨价推高的供应链成本,还耗尽了积攒多年的应急储蓄。

此外,这种“追加保证金”的压力从来都不是平均分摊的。若将目光投向“哑铃”的握杆——也就是经济中需求刚性最强的部分——就能清晰看到谁在承受通胀最沉重的负担。

美国原住民女性面临全美最大的薪资差距,同等工作下,白人男性每赚1美元,她们仅能赚取53至58美分。对她们而言,每加仑4.11美元的汽油带来的实际冲击,相当于白人男性的两倍。对于失业率正急剧攀升的黑人女性,或是正因高商业贷款利率而苦苦挣扎的拉丁裔女性而言,这绝非经济概念,而是迫在眉睫的流动性危机。我们正在让这个国家资金最匮乏的群体,用自己的血汗钱来为这场地缘政治冲突引发的能源冲击买单。

重建财务缓冲空间

这也是政策制定者“暂时性”的说法根本站不住脚的原因。国际货币基金组织的最新模型预测,持续的能源供应中断,可能将全球经济增速拉低至2%,并使通胀重回6%的高位。

如此规模的大宗商品结构性冲击,会在家庭资产负债表上留下持久的印记。当布伦特原油价格最终企稳时,按22%年化利率复利滚动的债务,并不会凭空消失。宏观经济数据或许可以翻篇,但普通家庭的财务困境却无法轻易重置。

这是关乎国家生产力的问题。当地缘政治危机推高物流成本,中产家庭被迫耗尽储蓄或压缩非必要支出时,宏观经济韧性将相应减弱。未来的薪资增速将放缓,联邦税收将减少。在美国政府亟需更强大的劳动力群体偿还39万亿美元债务之际,其劳动力群体却持续弱化。

如果美国想要真正实现经济韧性,政策制定者和商界领袖就必须停止将家庭经济基础视为次要议题。能源政策本质上就是劳工政策。女性的劳动参与率,以及她们通过劳动实现财富积累的能力,是GDP增长的核心驱动力。

当各类机构围绕原油产量、利差和各类基准指标搭建模型时,往往忽略了实际经济状况。白宫预测2026年美国GDP增速可达3.5%,但国际货币基金组织已将其下调至2.3%,正是因为后者看清了能源大宗商品价格飙升的现实。油价突破百元关口的冲击,是对美国经济的一场考验:它是否为中产阶级重建足够的缓冲空间,以抵御市场波动?目前来看,答案是否定的。

但只要转变视角,就能改写这个等式。可以通过构建全新体系,让中产阶级成为经济增长的基石,而非被动承压方,从而为更具韧性、运行更高效的经济铺平道路。(财富中文网)

卡蒂卡·罗伊(Katica Roy)是总部位于丹佛的软件即服务公司Pipeline的首席执行官兼创始人,该公司借助人工智能技术,以交叉性性别平等为抓手,发掘并实现经济收益。卡蒂卡是业内备受推崇的性别经济学家,同时任职于彭博新经济论坛、Fast Company影响力委员会,以及美国小企业管理局全国女性商业委员会。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:中慧言-王芳

面对油价冲击,华尔街追问其对通胀、美联储政策及能源股的影响。而普通家庭关心的却是截然不同的问题:这个月该如何实现收支平衡?

这正是当下分析的关键短板。

中东地缘政治冲突,正不断掏空美国人的钱包。原油价格重回每桶100美元以上,全美汽油均价近期突破每加仑4美元,国际货币基金组织(IMF)在春季会议上发布了一份一针见血的评估报告。该机构指出,本轮能源冲击已打断美国经济的稳步增长轨迹。该机构下调了美国产出预期,并指出这场危机将显著削弱消费者的购买力。

即便如此,官方评论仍常将本轮高价周期描述为“暂时性现象”。但“暂时”一词不过是官方话术,并不能用来形容普通家庭面临的现实情况。

政府可以发行国债。企业可以转嫁成本、争取缓冲时间或裁员降本。中产阶级家庭却别无选择。他们无法通过发行债券来抵御冲击,只能依靠现金流、信用卡,甚至耗尽储蓄来硬撑。

这就是为何这绝不仅是油价问题,而是美国中产阶级被迫面对的“追加保证金”时刻。

消费支出占美国GDP的近70%。这意味着美国经济本质上由家庭消费驱动。而从历史数据来看,美国家庭的偿付能力主要靠女性支撑。1979年至2018年间,美国中产阶级收入增长的绝大部分来自女性收入及其劳动时长的增加。若剔除女性的贡献,过去四十年中产阶级收入基本上陷入停滞。

与此同时,美国国债规模已突破39万亿美元,这使得美国政府高度依赖持续的劳动力参与率和税收收入,才能避免财政状况进一步恶化。

因此,油价飙升之际,真正的问题绝非只是标题消费者价格指数(CPI)是否走高(事实是,2026年3月消费者价格指数已升至3.3%),更在于:当国家的核心增长引擎本就处于财务紧绷状态时,若再对出行、物流、食品、公用事业及照护服务加征新税,将会引发何种后果。

因为持续油价冲击,本质上就是向抗风险能力最弱的家庭征收累退税。

冲击传导链条

油价对家庭的冲击从来不是一次性事件,而是分五个阶段层层传导、反复施压。

首先,汽油涨价直接推高上班族的通勤成本。其次,柴油价格飙升向货运与农业端传导,数月后便会给家庭食品杂货开支带来第二轮冲击,天然气价格与化肥成本飙升,正是这一传导效应的直接体现。第三,石化产品成本上升,推高日常家居用品价格。第四,服务商被迫将高昂的公用事业和运输成本直接转嫁给消费者。最后,在这些刚性支出的挤压下,家庭只能缩减其他所有开支,这将直接拖累GDP增长。

我们对这一连锁反应再熟悉不过,因为刚刚经历过。2022年能源危机期间,油价一度飙升至每桶120美元以上。短短数月,食品杂货通胀率飙至13.5%,创下40年新高,实际平均时薪下降3.1%,为填补这一缺口,消费者信用卡债务激增15.2%,创下历史纪录。

“哑铃型经济”的结构性脆弱

这段历史恰恰印证了本轮冲击背后的结构性风险。美国人正身处“哑铃型经济”之中。

哑铃顶端的高净值家庭安然无虞:即便每月在燃料和食品杂货上多支出数百美元,也无需改变生活方式。哑铃底端人群虽面临财务压力,但政策制定者至少能察觉到这一状况,因为社会保障网的覆盖对象,正是这一群体。

承受最大压力的正是哑铃中间的群体:教师、护士、项目经理,以及双职工家庭。他们收入不低,因而无法申领社会救助,却又远不足以抵御外部冲击。在本轮能源冲击到来之前,累计通胀已迫使科罗拉多州普通家庭,自2020年以来为维持原有生活水平多支出近4.1万美元——这笔“通胀税”的涨幅远超普通劳动者的薪资增速,使得他们在新一轮油价飙升面前没有任何缓冲余地。

如今的美国中产阶级已然处于零缓冲状态,收入所得尽数用于刚性支出,根本无从灵活支配。

只有理解了这种底层的脆弱性,才能明白能源冲击如何引发系统性偿付风险。当宏观经济的收支出现失衡,填补缺口的重担便落在了普通家庭身上;而在美国,最终承受冲击的往往是女性。

“退出劳动力市场”的迷思

经济评论中常有一种假设:当工作成本过高时,女性会选择退出劳动力市场。但这种说法忽略了现代家庭的收支现状。数百万女性根本没有“退出”的资格。

在美国有18岁以下子女的家庭中,40%以母亲为经济支柱。此外,在超70%的此类家庭中,母亲的收入对维持家庭偿付能力至关重要。

她的薪水绝非“补充收入”,而是避免财务破产的结构性屏障。

当油价冲击来袭时,这些女性根本不可能退出劳动力市场。在经济压力下,她们陷入了结构性困境:为了生计必须继续工作,但工作的成本却突然大幅攀升。

为填补缺口,她们只能独自承受冲击:靠年化利率高达22%的循环信贷来支付被柴油涨价推高的供应链成本,还耗尽了积攒多年的应急储蓄。

此外,这种“追加保证金”的压力从来都不是平均分摊的。若将目光投向“哑铃”的握杆——也就是经济中需求刚性最强的部分——就能清晰看到谁在承受通胀最沉重的负担。

美国原住民女性面临全美最大的薪资差距,同等工作下,白人男性每赚1美元,她们仅能赚取53至58美分。对她们而言,每加仑4.11美元的汽油带来的实际冲击,相当于白人男性的两倍。对于失业率正急剧攀升的黑人女性,或是正因高商业贷款利率而苦苦挣扎的拉丁裔女性而言,这绝非经济概念,而是迫在眉睫的流动性危机。我们正在让这个国家资金最匮乏的群体,用自己的血汗钱来为这场地缘政治冲突引发的能源冲击买单。

重建财务缓冲空间

这也是政策制定者“暂时性”的说法根本站不住脚的原因。国际货币基金组织的最新模型预测,持续的能源供应中断,可能将全球经济增速拉低至2%,并使通胀重回6%的高位。

如此规模的大宗商品结构性冲击,会在家庭资产负债表上留下持久的印记。当布伦特原油价格最终企稳时,按22%年化利率复利滚动的债务,并不会凭空消失。宏观经济数据或许可以翻篇,但普通家庭的财务困境却无法轻易重置。

这是关乎国家生产力的问题。当地缘政治危机推高物流成本,中产家庭被迫耗尽储蓄或压缩非必要支出时,宏观经济韧性将相应减弱。未来的薪资增速将放缓,联邦税收将减少。在美国政府亟需更强大的劳动力群体偿还39万亿美元债务之际,其劳动力群体却持续弱化。

如果美国想要真正实现经济韧性,政策制定者和商界领袖就必须停止将家庭经济基础视为次要议题。能源政策本质上就是劳工政策。女性的劳动参与率,以及她们通过劳动实现财富积累的能力,是GDP增长的核心驱动力。

当各类机构围绕原油产量、利差和各类基准指标搭建模型时,往往忽略了实际经济状况。白宫预测2026年美国GDP增速可达3.5%,但国际货币基金组织已将其下调至2.3%,正是因为后者看清了能源大宗商品价格飙升的现实。油价突破百元关口的冲击,是对美国经济的一场考验:它是否为中产阶级重建足够的缓冲空间,以抵御市场波动?目前来看,答案是否定的。

但只要转变视角,就能改写这个等式。可以通过构建全新体系,让中产阶级成为经济增长的基石,而非被动承压方,从而为更具韧性、运行更高效的经济铺平道路。(财富中文网)

卡蒂卡·罗伊(Katica Roy)是总部位于丹佛的软件即服务公司Pipeline的首席执行官兼创始人,该公司借助人工智能技术,以交叉性性别平等为抓手,发掘并实现经济收益。卡蒂卡是业内备受推崇的性别经济学家,同时任职于彭博新经济论坛、Fast Company影响力委员会,以及美国小企业管理局全国女性商业委员会。

Fortune.com上发表的评论文章中表达的观点,仅代表作者本人的观点,不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:中慧言-王芳

Wall Street sees an oil shock and asks what it means for inflation, the Fed, and energy stocks. Households see an oil shock and ask a very different question: How do we make this month’s math work?

That is the analytic failure at the center of this moment.

The geopolitical conflict in the Middle East is actively draining the American wallet. With crude surging back above $100 a barrel and the national average for gasoline recently topping $4 per gallon, the International Monetary Fund issued a clear-eyed assessment at its spring meetings. The IMF noted that the energy shock has interrupted the steady growth trajectory, downgrading U.S. output projections and pointing out that the crisis will measurably erode consumer purchasing power.

Despite this, official commentary often describes the period of elevated prices as “temporary.” But “temporary” is a sovereign word. It is not a household word.

Governments can issue debt. Corporations can pass on costs, buy time, or cut labor. Middle-class families can do none of those things. They do not absorb shocks through bond issuance. They absorb them through cash flow, credit cards, and depleted savings.

That is why this is not just an oil story. It is a middle-class margin call.

Consumer spending makes up nearly 70% of U.S. GDP. That means the American economy is overwhelmingly powered by households. And if you look at the historical data, the solvency of those households has been overwhelmingly powered by women. Between 1979 and 2018, the vast majority of all income growth for the American middle class was driven primarily by women’s earnings and their increased hours worked. Take women out of the equation, and middle-class income essentially flatlines for four decades.

At the same time, the national debt is already above $39 trillion, leaving Washington deeply dependent on sustained labor force participation and tax receipts to keep the fiscal picture from worsening.

So when oil spikes, the real question is not only whether headline CPI ticks up (which it just did, March 2026 CPI was 3.3%). The real question is what happens when the country’s primary growth engine is already financially stretched, and you add a new tax on mobility, logistics, food, utilities, and care.

Because that is what a sustained oil shock is: a regressive tax on the households least able to hedge it.

The Math of the Transmission Cascade

An oil shock does not hit households once. It hits them repeatedly, in a five-phase cascade.

First, gasoline hits workers directly on the commute. Second, spiking diesel costs move through freight and agriculture, ensuring a secondary margin call on grocery expenditures months later, a reality reflected in the sharp spike in natural gas prices and surging fertilizer costs. Third, petrochemical costs rise, repricing everyday household goods. Fourth, service providers are forced to pass elevated utility and transport costs directly to consumers. Finally, constrained by these non-discretionary costs, households pull back on all other spending, which directly impacts aggregate GDP.

We know exactly how this math plays out because we just lived it. During the 2022 energy shock, oil spiked past $120. Within months, grocery inflation hit a 40-year high of 13.5%, real average hourly earnings fell by 3.1%, and consumer credit card debt surged by a record 15.2% just to cover the gap.

The Structural Fragility of the Barbell Economy

That historical reality underscores the structural risk of this current shock. We are operating within a Barbell Economy.

The top of the barbell is fine. High-asset households can absorb a few hundred dollars more a month in fuel and groceries without changing behavior. The bottom of the barbell is financially strained, but at least partially visible to policymakers because that is where safety-net eligibility lives.

The demographic bearing the brunt of this pressure is in the middle: teachers, nurses, project managers, and dual-income families who earn too much for help and too little for insulation. Prior to this energy shock, cumulative inflation had already forced the average Colorado household to spend nearly $41,000 more since 2020 just to maintain the same standard of living — an inflation tax that has effectively outstripped the average worker’s wage growth and left them with zero margin for a new oil spike.

This middle class operates at a zero-margin state. Every dollar is already spoken for.

It is only once we understand this baseline fragility that we can see how an energy shock creates a systemic solvency risk. When the macroeconomic math breaks, it falls on the household to absorb the deficit. And in America, the ultimate shock absorbers are women.

The Myth of “Opting Out”

There is a frequent assumption in economic commentary that when the cost of working rises too high, women simply choose to leave the labor force. But this framing ignores the modern household balance sheet. Millions of women do not have the luxury of opting out.

Moms are the breadwinners in 40% of U.S. households with children under the age of 18. Furthermore, in over 70% of households with children under 18, a mother’s income contributes to household solvency.

Her paycheck is not supplemental; it is the structural wall between her family and financial insolvency.

When an oil shock drops onto that reality, these women cannot just leave the labor force. They are financially constrained. They are caught in a structural bind where they must continue working to survive, but the act of working has suddenly become vastly more expensive.

To bridge the gap, they absorb the shock internally. They rely on revolving credit at 22% APR to cover the inflated costs of diesel-driven supply chains. They drain the emergency savings they spent years building.

Furthermore, this margin call does not distribute itself evenly. If we look at the handle of the barbell, the inelastic demand of our economy, we see exactly who is carrying the heaviest weight of this inflation.

For Native American women, who face the deepest wage gap in the nation at 53 to 58 cents on the dollar, a $4.11 gallon of gas hits functionally twice as hard. For Black women, who are currently seeing unemployment rates surge, or Latinas struggling with high business interest rates, the margin call is not a theoretical economic concept. It is an immediate liquidity crisis. We are asking the most under-capitalized demographics in the nation to finance a geopolitical energy shock out of their own pockets.

Rebuilding the Margin

This is why the “temporary” framing from policymakers misses the mark. The IMF’s latest models project that sustained energy disruptions could drag global growth down to 2% and send inflation back up to 6%.

A structural commodity shock of that magnitude leaves a lasting mark on household balance sheets. Debt compounded at 22% does not vanish when the price of Brent crude eventually stabilizes. The official economy may move on, but the household balance sheet does not.

This is a national productivity issue. Every time a middle-class family is forced to drain its wealth or pull back on discretionary spending just to absorb the logistical cost of a geopolitical crisis, the entire economy weakens. Future wage growth slows. Federal tax receipts fall. And Washington gets a weaker labor base precisely when it needs a stronger one to service its $39 trillion debt.

If the United States wants to build genuine economic resilience, policymakers and business leaders need to stop treating household infrastructure as a side conversation. Energy policy is labor policy. Women’s labor force participation — and their ability to actually build wealth from that participation — is a core input to GDP growth.

When institutions model barrels, spreads, and benchmarks, they often miss the actual economy. The White House is projecting 3.5% GDP growth for 2026, but the IMF has already downgraded U.S. growth to 2.3%, recognizing the reality of an energy commodity spike. An oil shock above $100 is a test of whether the American economy has rebuilt enough middle-class margin to withstand volatility. Currently, we have not.

But by shifting our perspective, we can rewrite the equation. We can build a system where the middle class serves as a foundation for growth rather than a shock absorber, paving the way for a more resilient, higher-functioning economy.

Katica Roy is the CEO and founder of Denver-based Pipeline, a SaaS company that leverages artificial intelligence to identify and drive economic gains through intersectional gender equity. Katica is a highly regarded gender economist and serves on Bloomberg’s New Economy Forum, Fast Company’s Impact Council, and the US Small Business Administration’s National Women’s Business Council.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开