1107 亿薪资、460 亿税收、1822 亿美元采购,马斯克造就的「美国梦」

深潮Publicado em 2025-11-12Última atualização em 2025-11-13

马斯克的企业是真正的经济助推器,将科幻变为现实。

撰文:Larry Goldberg

编译:AididiaoJP,Foresight News

很少有人意识到,埃隆·马斯克不仅让自己变得富有,更是一股创造就业、缴纳税收、提振经济的重要力量。在过去的五年间(2021-2025 年),通过他旗下的公司包括特斯拉、SpaceX、xAI、The Boring Company 和 Neuralink,马斯克已将数千亿美元的资金注入美国人的口袋。这并非抽象的华尔街数字,而是在社区中真实流通的资金,从德克萨斯州的工厂车间到加利福尼亚州的工程中心,无处不在。让我们用具体数据来解析,看看马斯克的企业如何为美国经济注入活力。

就业与收入

过去五年,马斯克的公司累计支付了高达 1107 亿美元的薪资,这笔钱足以让洛杉矶的每位居民获得 2.7 万美元。这些收入支撑着超过 20 万名员工的生活,从制造电动皮卡 Cybertruck 的焊接工,到设计火星火箭的软件工程师。不仅是高层管理人员受益,特斯拉的平均年薪约 16 万美元,足以让员工安家立业、子女就学,并带动当地餐饮等行业的繁荣。

这些收入还在持续产生涟漪效应:员工将钱用于购买日用品、住房和度假等消费,根据经济学乘数效应,每 1 美元可产生 1.5 至 2 美元的经济价值。

税收贡献

马斯克的商业帝国在税收方面贡献显著。仅员工缴纳的个人所得税和工资税就达到 318 亿美元,用于支持教育、基建和社会保障体系。这笔金额相当于两次全额资助美国太空总署的预算。在企业层面,尽管享有绿色科技和研发相关的税收优惠,这些公司仍缴纳了 52 亿美元的企业所得税。加上雇主承担的约 90 亿美元工资税,显然,马斯克的企业在切实履行纳税义务,而非逃避。

若每位亿万富翁的企业都能如此贡献,公共财政将更为充裕。

供应链

马斯克不仅聚焦于自身企业,更通过供应链将财富扩散至全美。仅特斯拉就向美国供应商采购了 1660 亿美元的电池、芯片和钢材,有力地支持了密歇根州和内华达州的制造业。SpaceX 秉持「美国制造」原则,贡献了 70 亿美元的采购额,主要面向国内供应商采购火箭级合金和航空电子设备。再加上 xAI,总额达到 1730 亿美元的采购惠及了数千家中小企业,不仅创造了大量间接就业,还增强了美国供应链抵御全球风险的能力。

此外,xAI 已投入约 90 亿美元建设数据中心,并计划在未来两年内为「Colossus 2」项目再投入 400 亿至 600 亿美元。

总体影响:3380 亿美元的经济引擎

综合来看:1107 亿美元的薪资 + 460 亿美元的税收 + 1822 亿美元的供应商支出 = 自 2021 年以来为美国经济注入的 3380 亿美元。随着全自动驾驶出租车(Robotaxi)、人形机器人 Optimus 和超级计算机 Colossus 等项目扩大规模,这些支出将在短期内大幅增长,预计每年可达 3000 亿美元以上。考虑到经济乘数效应,这相当于为美国 GDP 安装了「涡轮增压器」。马斯克的影响力何在?他创造了高薪岗位,资助了公共事业,重建了工业实力,这证明,大胆的创新最终会让普通美国人受益。

尽管批评者质疑其风险,但数据不会说谎:马斯克的企业是真正的经济助推器,将科幻变为现实。随着 xAI 和 Neuralink 的发展,其影响还将扩大。在这个薪资增长停滞、产业外流的时代,埃隆·马斯克证明了:美国的创新力仍在塑造未来,并为之提供资金。

Leituras Relacionadas

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

When users complained that Claude was "getting dumber," the root cause wasn't the AI model itself. In an official blog post, Anthropic clarified the critical difference between two key settings in Claude Code: Model and Effort. Model refers to the core "brain"—the fixed, trained weights of a specific AI (like Sonnet, Opus, or Fable). Changing the Model addresses *capability* ("can it do this?"), but its knowledge is static post-training. Effort, however, controls the AI's *approach and thoroughness* for a specific task. A higher Effort level instructs Claude to read more files, run tests, perform verification, and complete multi-step reasoning before responding, significantly increasing its "work output" for that job. Conversely, low Effort leads to quicker, less thorough replies. This distinction explains the March 2024 uproar where users experienced a sudden drop in Claude's performance. The cause was not a model change but Anthropic quietly lowering the *default* Effort setting from "high" to "medium" to reduce latency, which was later reverted. The key insight is that a smaller, capable model (like Sonnet) on high Effort can often outperform a larger, more powerful model (like Opus) on low Effort for many tasks. The article provides a practical troubleshooting framework: if Claude makes an error, first check the context and instructions. If it seems to skip necessary steps or validations, increase Effort. If it diligently attempts the task but fails conceptually or makes consistent factual errors despite good context, then consider switching to a more capable Model. The takeaway is a shift in focus: effective AI programming is less about always choosing the "strongest" model and more about intelligently *orchestrating* models and effort levels—acting like a project manager to assign the right "brain" with the right level of diligence for each job, optimizing both results and cost.

marsbitHá 1h

Claude Accused of Becoming Dumber by the Entire Internet, Anthropic Steps In to Reveal: It’s Not the Model That’s Tricking You

marsbitHá 1h

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

The Ethereum Foundation (EF) is undergoing significant internal turmoil and functional erosion. Following its largest-ever layoff of 54 staff (20% of its workforce) and a major organizational restructuring announced in June, its Protocol Support Team has been officially dissolved. This comes alongside the high-profile resignation of key figures like co-executive director Xiaowei Wang, bringing senior departures this year to at least eight. Criticism of EF's rigid structure, opaque decision-making, and perceived lack of a clear value narrative for ETH has intensified within the community. The layoffs have catalyzed the emergence of independent, non-profit organizations like Ethlabs and Ethereum Institutional, founded by former EF researchers and members. These entities are now taking on core functions such as protocol research/development and institutional adoption, effectively fragmenting the EF's traditional leadership role. Concurrently, EF's security team is adapting to technological change, deploying specialized AI agents to audit Ethereum's codebase, which successfully discovered a critical vulnerability (CVE-2026-34219). While EF states AI complements rather than replaces researchers, it signals a potential future shift in its operational model. Faced with these challenges—internal restructuring, talent drain, the rise of competing organizations, and AI integration—the Ethereum Foundation appears to be stepping back from a central commanding role. Analysts and community observers speculate it may increasingly transition towards a symbolic "ecosystem mascot" function, while decentralized initiatives drive Ethereum's future growth and institutional adoption.

marsbitHá 1h

Will the Ethereum Foundation Evolve into a 'Mascot'? Diversified Organizations Are Fragmenting Its Functions

marsbitHá 1h

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

The domestic embodied AI data industry has attracted nearly 100 players, with 70 focused on data collection and 27 on data infrastructure. In the past year, 15 independent embodied data service providers raised approximately 4.47 billion yuan. Despite this growth, the sector remains early-stage, fragmented, and faces significant challenges. Data collection methods are diverse, categorized into four main routes: teleoperation of real robots, human demonstration without a robot (using motion capture, exoskeletons, etc.), simulation synthesis, and distillation from internet videos. Most companies (43%) adopt hybrid approaches, combining multiple routes, as no single method can meet all training needs. Teleoperation alone is pursued by 31% of players, often by state-owned platforms and robot companies, while newer firms favor asset-light, no-hardware human demonstration. Independent data service providers now form the largest player group (40%), indicating the emergence of a distinct industry segment rather than just a subsidiary function for robot makers. Two-thirds of all players are "embodied-native" startups, while one-third are companies that pivoted from fields like AI data annotation, which are more prevalent in the data infrastructure layer. Current annual industry capacity is estimated at 1.6-1.8 million hours plus 70-80 million data points, with a short-term goal to increase this 15-20 fold within 1-3 years. Data collection factories are spread across 20 provinces in China, concentrated in the Yangtze River Delta, Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei, and Pearl River Delta regions. Financially, the 4.47 billion yuan raised in the past year pales compared to the 43.8 billion yuan raised by the broader embodied intelligence sector in just the first half of 2026, highlighting that data remains a less "sexy" bet for investors. The 15 funded independent providers show clear stratification: a top tier led by a unicorn (Lightwheel Intelligence, 3.1 billion yuan), a middle tier of 11 firms raising tens to hundreds of millions, and an early-stage tier of 3 companies. Sixty-nine investment institutions have participated, but none have made concentrated bets, reflecting uncertainty about viable business models. Over half of these funded companies are less than a year old, most are at pre-A or A rounds, and profitability remains largely unproven. In summary, the embodied data industry has become an independent track creating jobs and local economic activity. However, it is still nascent, with unformed consensus, unsolved problems, and unproven business models. The coming 1-2 years will be a critical validation window to see if companies can build sustainable, profitable businesses purely by "selling data."

marsbitHá 4h

Nearly a Hundred Players Rush into Embodied Data: With 4.47 Billion Yuan in Financing in One Year, Who Can Really Make Money by 'Selling Data'?

marsbitHá 4h

Trading

Spot
活动图片