>>149602472
I worked in fund raising for a university. In general, we didn't give a shit about 99% of alumni. Donations from them were "anchoring", meaning it created a sense of connection between them and the university. They felt like they were partially responsible for its growth and success when they donated.
Due to marketing costs and other overhead, we lost money on many alumni donations. But some of those 99% became part of the 1%. That's where the real money came from. We wanted them anchored to the school while they were in the 99% so they'd be receptive to us soliciting them for big money when they became the 1%.
All of this is to say that if you're never going to be part of the 1%, we're fine with you removing yourself from the donor pool. Your money, even if it is more than the cost to fund raise from you, is insignificant compared to what we got from the whales in the 1%.

>>509020759
You can't expect people who don't understand per capita to understand compound interest.