I’ve reread my post and while it’s a bit convoluted I think careful reading makes it clear that I’m ridiculing that position.
Yeah, apologies. I was the one who needed to read more clearly, and I edited my post quickly to make a better point.
But that tiny fraction have always, in the US, had the power to change both or either timezone or use of DST, and for the most part haven’t. But I grew up around 60N, and left home and came home in the darkness for a couple of months anyway, so maybe I’m biased.
Because it’s only nice enough to go bicycling, swimming, picnicking, or just about any other outdoor activity 3 or 4 months out of the year here in Minnesota. I want the sun shining an extra our after work when I can enjoy it, not when I’m trying to block it out with my blinds when I’m still trying to sleep in the morning.
My wife and I are the same, but even worse: We cannot sleep after the sun comes up. I hate darkening window coverings because I get disoriented when I wake up after the sun comes up but don’t realize it (this is what happens in hotel rooms for me). We are near the Canadian border so standard time would have us waking up before 4:00AM. We are early risers, but that is pushing it. We prefer DST. We wake up in the dark in the winter no matter what.
There is no good solution that makes everyone happy. Damn you Mother Nature! Picking one time and sticking with it will make us happier.
What about “consensus time”?
There’s a lot of inertia in stuff like this and being on a different standard than the rest of your state or nearby population centers also has costs. The few places that have split from the rest of their state (like Eastern Oregon) tend to be close to a major population center just across the border, which makes it economically beneficial to change.
I wouldn’t assume that this would translate to “everyone will be happy with it being dark longer in the morning”
I think you’re correct that having grown up farther north than most people gives you a different perspective. If you live farther north, at some point you’re getting up in the dark no matter what, so you come to terms with it. But most people don’t have that experience and have many decades of getting up around when the sun comes up.
You’re right, location gives different experiences. I get up in the dark in the winter; I sleep through sunrise at 4.30 am in the summer; and i get up roughly with the sun in the spring and the fall. And that’s not DST, that’s standard time. For me, that’s just the rhythm of the seasons.
This is a good example of ‘fixing’ a problem by introducing more problems.
The consensus appears to be we have DST so there is more daylight after school/work/etc during a portion of the year. And possibly having more darkness in the mornings (this seems to have less of a consensus).
The better solution should be to adjust the hours for school/work/etc to something more sensible that produces the same result but we have instead (collectively) decided that a hamfisted shifting of clocks is the best compromise, because heaven forbid companies actually have to put in a bit of effort for the greater social good. After several decades, inertia takes care of the rest.
All I care about is that they pick one and stick to it. I couldn’t care less which of the two times is the chosen one.
Maybe they can vote on stopping the flip-flopping of the clocks, without choosing which one. Then there would be time to vote on the best option for which time would become permanent.
I don’t see why that “should be” the better solution. I think switching time “should be” the better solution. The hours remain the same year-round, just the timing of the daylight changes to when we prefer it. I suppose we can seasonally change shop and school times to the same effect, but that’s a pain-in-the-ass change, too, and I don’t see how it’s practically any better.
Abrupt changes twice a year is equivalent or better? Surely not.
It’s an arbitrary thing. We get the equivalent result by having everybody keep their clocks the same but suddenly decide twice a year to shift operating hours by 1 hour. But that sounds insane to us while simply changing our clocks twice a year does not. That says more about our relative sanity (or lack thereof) than the sensibility of the scheme.
As I noted above, there are several countries that don’t change their clocks at all and get by fine. There are US states that do the same (well, 2, but still). This isn’t something that ‘makes’ sense in any conventional way. It’s something we decided to try and it hangs around out of inertia. All the supporting arguments sound a lot like post-hoc justifications to support the status quo.
It just changed. I was waking up in the dark before the change. I’m still waking up in the dark. It doesn’t matter once you get near Canada. I do get more daylight after work now which is nice. More time to take the dog out without lighted harness, flashlights, etc.
ST vs DST depends on where you live.
Both are equally arbitrary and equally disruptive is what I’m saying.
Also, I’m on the record as saying if we change, change to DST. It will bother me none. What I think will happen is the opposite chorus of “bring the time change back!” will happen, so this will be all for naught. We’ve done it before. Russia did it in 2011. Both went back. I guess we’ll see.
Yes, and it was hell, especially trying to sleep in noisy Manhattan. Except for the summer I had an apartment that adjoined the beach. I had an amazing tan that year.
But regarding going to school in the dark: Why not begin school an hour or two later? Where is it written that kids have to go to school at a specific time? And business can be flexible about parents beginning their work day.
Precisely, so why do either? I’m also saying we shouldn’t have sudden, abrupt changes at all.
I was responding to a poster who wanted more daylight hours after conventional working hours. And my point was that the better solution was not changing clocks but collectively adjusting school/work conditions if more daylight hours for leisure was actually the goal.
I disagree with this. If we hadn’t tried to undo it in the 70s this would be a good argument, but we got rid of it and then everyone realized that it was better the old way.
Something surviving on inertia doesn’t get reinstated after a brief experimentation without it. Switching time twice a year solves several problems in probably the best way possible:
- It makes sense to have different summer and winter hours because we are diurnal creatures that like to wake up around when the sun comes up to the extent possible.
- Having every institution switch their hours individually would be a chaotic nightmare because people have to interact with multiple institutions. You really need the schools and the employers and the television programs and the grocery stores and the locksmiths to all change at the same time or there are a lot of economic costs.
Solutions that suggest we stop changing the hours at which we do things are ignoring the important human nature of #1. Solutions that suggest we do something other than change the clocks en masse are ignoring the economic implications of #2.
The coordination costs of not having everyone change their clocks are extremely high. One solution is universal and the only thing you have to do to make sure you are on time to things is change your clocks (and lots of clocks now change automatically). The other one requires you to find out the summer schedule of every institution you interact with. Best case they all change on the same day, which is basically equivalent to what you get when we just change the clocks, except now you have the added burden of doing a little math every time you look at the clock instead of just remembering “school starts at 8”.
Bad idea. We already lose too much instructional time due to sports and activities. Starting an hour later would magnify that problem immensely.
To me, the whole argument is stupid. I’ve never had any problems with the twice a year change. Obviously I am an outlier.
But my point is that it’s not any better in my view as that would still require shifting around working hours seasonally, so instead of shifting clocks and keeping times the same (which to me seems easier), it’s not shifting clocks and having seasonal work hours (which to me seems at least as confusing, if not more.)
School and work have to start around the same time in general, because one of the values of school is that it’s a safe place for kids to be where their parents don’t have to watch them so that the parents can go to work.
And many businesses cannot be flexible about parents beginning their work day. Things run on a schedule for efficiency and production reasons. A few jobs can be very flexible, but they’re generally high class knowledge work jobs. The vast majority of jobs have to start on time! If you drive a bus or a plane, you can’t just show up an hour later or people won’t get where they’re going. If you work at a restaurant or store, you have to show up on time or people won’t be able to buy food or other goods. If you work at a school, you have to show up on time because all the other parents are counting on the school starting on time so they can go to work, If you work in a factory, you have to show up on time or the line will go idle. And so on. Civilization runs on a schedule.