A Case Against Making Daylight Saving Time Permanent: We've Tried this Before and It Didn't Go Over Well (washingtonpost.com) 256
Aaron Blake, writing at The Washington Post: Americans turned their clocks forward an hour earlier this week for what some hope will be the last time, as bipartisan momentum builds for making daylight saving time permanent. As The Post's Capital Weather Gang notes, a bill spearheaded by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has united lawmakers from opposite parties who can't agree on much of anything these days. It also builds upon legislation already passed in 16 states -- both red and blue -- and current debates in states such as Nevada. All of it reflects apparently real momentum behind the effort. But as most of us bemoan our messed-up sleep schedules on the first Monday after losing an hour, it's worth a little history lesson: We've tried this before, and it didn't go over well. Whatever momentary mental anguish you're experiencing right now, there are huge trade-offs that many or most Americans have previously decided aren't worth the switch.
The year was 1973, and the United States was experiencing an energy crisis. Among the proposals put forward by President Richard M. Nixon in a November address was making daylight saving time permanent for the next two winters. Despite scant evidence of daylight saving time's past benefit on the energy supply (dating back to DST's various introductions since World War I), Americans really liked the idea. Polling in November and December 1973 showed strong and in some cases overwhelming support -- 57 percent in a Gallup poll, 74 percent in a Louis Harris and Associates poll, and 73 percent in a poll from the Roper Organization. The policy was quickly implemented in early January 1974. But it just as quickly fell out of favor. In a Roper poll conducted in February and March, just 30 percent remained in favor of year-round daylight saving time, while a majority favored switching times again. Louis Harris polling in March showed just 19 percent of people said it had been a good idea, while about twice as many -- 43 percent -- said it was a bad one.
A big reason for the about-face? Whatever benefits might have been gleaned by giving people more sunlight in the evening during the winter, it also meant longer, darker mornings. Parents were suddenly sending their kids to school in the cold and the dark for months on end. As the Capital Weather Gang noted, such a change means the sun wouldn't rise before 8 a.m. in Washington for more than two and a half months, between late November and mid-February. The morning darkness would linger even longer farther north. Polling later that year -- after the dark mornings had waned -- was more mixed, with an Opinion Research poll in September showing 31 percent of people strongly favored the idea and 42 percent strongly opposed it. But even that wasn't good. And the idea was abandoned shortly before the next round of morning darkness would descend in the winter of 1974-1975. A Department of Transportation study at the time concluded that the change actually had minimal impact on saving energy and might have actually increased gasoline consumption.
The year was 1973, and the United States was experiencing an energy crisis. Among the proposals put forward by President Richard M. Nixon in a November address was making daylight saving time permanent for the next two winters. Despite scant evidence of daylight saving time's past benefit on the energy supply (dating back to DST's various introductions since World War I), Americans really liked the idea. Polling in November and December 1973 showed strong and in some cases overwhelming support -- 57 percent in a Gallup poll, 74 percent in a Louis Harris and Associates poll, and 73 percent in a poll from the Roper Organization. The policy was quickly implemented in early January 1974. But it just as quickly fell out of favor. In a Roper poll conducted in February and March, just 30 percent remained in favor of year-round daylight saving time, while a majority favored switching times again. Louis Harris polling in March showed just 19 percent of people said it had been a good idea, while about twice as many -- 43 percent -- said it was a bad one.
A big reason for the about-face? Whatever benefits might have been gleaned by giving people more sunlight in the evening during the winter, it also meant longer, darker mornings. Parents were suddenly sending their kids to school in the cold and the dark for months on end. As the Capital Weather Gang noted, such a change means the sun wouldn't rise before 8 a.m. in Washington for more than two and a half months, between late November and mid-February. The morning darkness would linger even longer farther north. Polling later that year -- after the dark mornings had waned -- was more mixed, with an Opinion Research poll in September showing 31 percent of people strongly favored the idea and 42 percent strongly opposed it. But even that wasn't good. And the idea was abandoned shortly before the next round of morning darkness would descend in the winter of 1974-1975. A Department of Transportation study at the time concluded that the change actually had minimal impact on saving energy and might have actually increased gasoline consumption.
How about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
If school is starting so early that it's still dark, delay school, not the clock.
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly which is also something that education experts have been saying for a while, we start school too early because it's convenient for working parents.
Re:How about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Just use whatever arguments otherwise work for making school adapt to reality, and then apply them to the workplace too.
Re:How about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, because all of that is far less effort than just changing the clocks twice a year.
Not.
The problem is lost sleep (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The problem is lost sleep (Score:5, Insightful)
I"m good with either way...PICK ONE and stick with it.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't personally care WHICH one they pic...DST or regular.
I"m good with either way...PICK ONE and stick with it.
There's also a third option called "in the middle".
Re: (Score:3)
While I suppose there could be a case made for that...
It would just be SO simple to pass a law now and say "ok, we stay here", and then no one ever has to change their clocks again.
I think that would be the perfect solution.
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parents negotiate their working times bases on their families school schedules.
The real conflict is that School classes normally last 6 hours a day. While most jobs require 8 hours a day.
The school schedule is really messed up.
For me k-4 8:30 Pickup
5-8 7:30 Pickup
9-12 6:30 Pickup
This is opposite for kids sleeping patterns for their age. As well can cause problems with work scheduled. 8:30 for kids who need to be watch may be too late for you to get to work. While any older kids say in their teens who can watch over the kids have already left for school.
Re: (Score:2)
Flexible working should be encouraged. Have core hours, say 10 to 4, and beyond that let people work around the other stuff in their lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How about.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parents negotiate their working times bases on their families school schedules. The real conflict is that School classes normally last 6 hours a day. While most jobs require 8 hours a day.
Yup. There are three choices here:
The correct answer is some combination of #2 and #3, but the ultra-wealthy who own this country will fight that battle and win every time, so the remaining option is #1.
And truthfully, lengthening the school day is not a bad idea. Instead of teachers teaching for a hour and then sending the kids to the next class, they could teach for an hour, then hang around for half an hour to answer questions while the kids work on things individually. The goal should be zero homework. When kids get out of school, they're done for the day.
This will, of course, require additional teachers, because teachers can't realistically be expected to put in a 45-hour work week and then spend another 15 hours each week grading papers.
On the other hand, the increased ability to provide individual attention from increasing the contact time by 50% will improve learning enough that the need for grading and testing will be reduced, which may alleviate some of that (but not all).
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Drive wages up by a factor of two so we can get back to the days when only one parent has to work.
Also drive "taxes" down for the same reason.
Taxes are in double-quotes because I'm really talking about driving down the cost of government, regardless of how it is extracted:
What would you like to cut? Be specific. Detail how the quality-of-life reduction from those cuts is exceeded by the quality-of-life improvement from lower taxes.
The fact of the matter is that most people DO NOT benefit from reduced government spending, because most people pay less in taxes than they get back in return on that investment. And for the people down at the bottom earnings-wise, that is doubly true. For people earning high wages, of course, they pay way more than they get back, but they also have enough money that they can afford to do so.
The real problem is the government's tendency to borrow huge amounts of money, making our country unnecessarily beholden to foreign interests. We should raise taxes as necessary until we stop running a deficit, then start paying down that huge mountain of debt.
Re: (Score:3)
Parents negotiate their working times bases (sic) on their families school schedules.
LOL. Someone's privilege is showing. It is cute that you are naive enough to think that a significant portion of the adult population can negotiate their working hours. I mean seriously dude. Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ending school later is also more convenient for working parents.
Not really. If I have to leave for work at 8 and my kids go to school at 8:30, then a slightly earlier school start is helpful.
If my kids get out of school at 2:30, and I get home at 6, then a slightly later school end makes no difference.
Re: (Score:2)
The most common daytime shifts are 7-3, 8-4, or 9-5. A later start helps in all three cases because you either are off in time already or have a much more reasonable and easily excused early exit for the times you have to pick up your child.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
if school is starting while it's still dark, turn on the lights. We do'nt live in the dark age any more.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
The issue isn't light, it's safety.
More likely to get hit by a car waiting for a bus on a dark street.
More likely to freeze to death in the pre-dawn cold.
Re:How about.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue isn't light, it's safety.
It is also crime, teen pregnancy, depression, delinquency, and poor performance in school. Early school start-times are correlated with all of those problems.
Delaying school start times improves health and reduces crime [cbslocal.com]
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
More likely to freeze to death in the pre-dawn cold.
I mean, I've seen strawmen before, but this one takes the cake. Might as well have said, "More likely to be killed by wolves in the cold, dark, frigid mornings."
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly! When I was a kid, I remember walking to school. Uphill. Both ways. So that I was safe from the wolves...
Can't do that (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, start times at modern schools are staggered to keep the older (and bigger) kids away from the younger (read: smaller) kids. This was done to prevent bullying and fights (mostly the fights, nobody really cares ab
Re:Can't do that (Score:5, Insightful)
Start times are staggered because they can send the buses out twice, rather than having twice as many buses.
Re:Can't do that (Score:5, Interesting)
Start times are staggered because they can send the buses out twice, rather than having twice as many buses.
This.
My county switched to staggered schedules to save on buses. High school starts first, so teenagers who naturally sleep later are groggy all day. Then my little kids wake up at the ass-crack of dawn (I'm lucky if they sleep that long) and I have an extra hour to entertain them until the bus comes.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to complain, you should point them to one of the numerous studies that show small children do better with a early start and teenagers do better with an later start.
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to complain, you should point them to one of the numerous studies that show small children do better with a early start and teenagers do better with an later start.
It's been done. School board's answer: High school students have after school jobs or need to take care of younger siblings.
Doesn't seem like good justification to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Or more often: High school students have sports practice in the afternoons before sundown, school has to start early to make room for that.
Re: Can't do that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My secondary modern school started at 9.05 am. Much more civilized.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
My factory job started at 5:30 am. When I was 12. Get over it ^^^ snowflake.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly it has nothing to do with bullying. Beside a 14 year old (Prime bully age) isn't going to be picking on kids under 10. But most of the Bullying comes from kids around the same age. But for a large district, if you have a fleet of a dozen school buses, If you can have them doing the following schedule
6:00-7:00 High School
7:00 - 8:00 Middle School
8:00 - 9:00 Elementary School
9:00 - 2:00 Bus Maintenance, Clean up. Time off
2:00 - 3:00 High School
3:00 - 4:00 Middle School
4:00 - 5:00 Elementary School
5:
Re: (Score:2)
Staggered school start times also help with traffic jams (parents don't drive their kids to school at the same time) and the number of school busses in cities (a single bus can carry the 8 o'clock and the 9 o'clock starting classes).
Re: Can't do that (Score:2)
Putting the little fucking brats on a bus also cuts down on traffic and doesn't create privileged little snowflakes.
Re: (Score:2)
Family and economic changes require the schools to also be day care stations now. It is because a family is expected to have duel income to live a standard middle class life. So back in the old days, normally the wife would stay home and take care of the children, and clean the house and prepare dinner while the kids are at school. While the Father did work that generated money for the family. They were a bunch of society norms that enforced this class based system, and made divorce or having children wh
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yep, largely the "good old days".
We certainly didn't see the societal breakdown, collapse of the family and the splintering and factionalization
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We were never united as a country. The white majority just used to do a more effective job of suppressing everyone else.
Now that white people are no longer a majority and the fastest-growing demographics in america are Asians and Latinos the oppressors are running scared that they will be the oppressed. Which is why the inventors of cancel culture (conservatives, who used to cancel brown people with nooses, but also tried to cancel marijuana, d & d, and rap music) are doubling and redoubling their effor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You forgot the efforts at voter suppression. Republicans have given up the pretense that they are in favor of universal suffrage,
Re:Can't do that (Score:4, Informative)
No....having a more homogeneous population does seem to promote a more harmonious country, it seems....look at the nordic countries that the left so often puts up as model societies (Sweden, etc).
The US, or course, has always been more diverse and worked well...but I think the problem is not so much more diversity, BUT...we are now much less of a melting pot than we used to be.
In the past, different races and ethnicities came in, and in short time, they melded from being a Folks coming in with a different language quickly learned to speak English.
We didn't used to have shit printed in other languages here...you came here, you learned the national common language.
Over past few decades, we've lost that...people come here, but instead of melding into the US culture and brining pieces of their culture with them to contribute, they keep to themselves, often only speaking their old native language and don't integrate, and actually may start fighting against the culture and norms of the people already IN the US.
Sure we have been a majority white nation for a long time, but the homogenous population I was speaking of here...was of nationality, not race...we used to all be Americans.
Now, we're all hyphenated, and that's even if they call themselves American at all anymore...
We're splintered, that's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I think teachers are all W2 salaried employees, not hourly.
You don't have to pay them any more than they get now which is less than 8 hours days if I recall.
Heck, just having them work a full 8 hour day like everyone else might do the trick, no?
Re: (Score:2)
I see you've never heard of the most powerful union in the US.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like you have a bad case of out of sight, out of mind. Since you didn't see your teachers after the school day ended you just assumed that they broke out the martinis and disco balls descended from the ceiling like some cheesy music video once the bell rang.
Between grading papers, classroom cleaning (you didn't actually think THE school janitor had time to clean every classroom for the next day, did you?) lesson planning and the endless bureaucratic paperwork, not to mention after-school programs tha
Re: (Score:3)
Heck, just having them work a full 8 hour day like everyone else might do the trick, no?
I was married to a (really good) teacher for 20 years (she died in 2006). They work more than 8 hours a weekday and also on the weekends. Some, but not all, schools offer limited planning time during the school day, but most of that work as well as grading is done at home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which causes an enormous ripple effect. Parents who are supposed to be working still getting kids off to school? No problem! School buses on the roads during rush hour? No problem! We'll just delay the start time of everything else! But wait, now it is not winter and there is no good reason for the late starts, and people would rather not be working during the daylight in the evening. No problem! We'll just change all the start times back for a while.
Or we could do something sane, like change the clo
Re: (Score:2)
There is no good reason to look at that photo from 1974 of kids outside in the dark at 7:45am waiting for a bus and say "I know, the problem with this isn't that 7:45 is an insane time but that it's dark"
This is exactly the point of people who want to year-round DST. They just also want it to be true in the winter. Even if that means its dark in the morning.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In spite of your user name, apparently you did not RTFA. People in 1973 also THOUGHT they wanted DST year round. When they got it, they found out that it sucked. Going from 74% thinking it is a good idea BEFORE it is implemented to 19% thinking it is a good idea AFTER it is implemented ought to tell you something.
Re:How about.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is your argument than its pretty poor one for favoring DST all year round. I could easily just say if you want more time in the evening get you butt to work earlier, don't change the clock.
The reality is labeling the hour of the day is abstract concept anyway. It really does not matter that much but since we have words like noon that mean when the sun is directly overhead we ought to have that be true. To that end DST breaks the definition of noon. If people want to stop adjusting the clock twice a year - we should go STANDARD time all year round not DST.
If societally we all want longer evenings than business should nominally open at 7/8 rather than 8/9.
The other thing is DST extends the period of the year where we have to wake up in the dark and cold (at least for the lower-48). I have electric lights I can turn on if I want to keep working into the evening, its a lot harder coming out of sleep while its still dark than it is staying up.
Re: (Score:3)
If school is starting so early that it's still dark, delay school, not the clock.
Kids need structure and routines. Changing the clock is much easier than changing the times of all their events.
I gradually shift my kids' bedtimes over a few days and they don't even notice.
Re: (Score:3)
There's actually evidence that teenagers in particular benefit from later school start times.
The problem with changing school times is that with two earner families that plays havoc with the parents' schedules. It would make sense to set school start no earlier than the earliest sunrise in the year -- except in Alaska, obviously. In some places moving school start times later will be unpopular because it interferes with football, even though it's good for kids academically.
Re: (Score:2)
High Schools at home start at 9:05.
Grade School at 8:55.
I have no idea how much of the US expects kids to be alert at school before then.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely fail to understand why school starts so early. while a student, i HATED getting up so early. As a parent, I HATED having to get the kids off to school so early.
This seems to be a relic of the industrial age.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that there is anything wrong with not having kids.
Re: (Score:2)
The regional school district here:
High-school class hours: 8:55 - 3:05;
- Students may enter at 7:00; Library opens at 7:30;
- Restricted re-entry at 4pm (doors are exit only).
- Library closes at 4:30, sports, band, and other clubs end at various times to 6:30/7pm. So, kids can stay as long as needed before heading home (if they drive, walk, or take public transit; School bussed routes tend to leave between 3:25 and 4:05)
Elementary-school class hours: 9:05 - 3:25.
- Students may enter at at 8:45 (Have to r
Re: (Score:2)
I have a job, and at some point in the year I have to get up in the dark. I'd rather not have to change my clock
Re: (Score:2)
>Sounds like you are someone with either no kids or no job.
Wrong on both counts.
I'd prefer getting rid of DST (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd prefer getting rid of DST (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I live in Arizona, and other than one Reservation the whoel state remains on standard time. It has never been a big deal other than all the out of state headaches with things like meetings scheduling before the software would account for it.
When I've pulled up timezone maps, one of the things I notice is how many areas are in timezones that have them deviating pretty far from their solar day. How about fixing that where possible, then going to standard time again?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Let's start at Greenwich, 0 deg longitude. Let's say the UTC time zone extends 7.5 degrees to the east and west. Now start painting off stripes of 15 degrees of longitude [timeanddate.com] (22.5 W, 37.5 W, 52.5 W, 67.5 W, 82.5 W, ...) You'll find that 82.5 W, which should be the westernmo
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed - normal time works better when daylight hours are severely limited in winter.
The point of Daylight Savings time was to move more of the long summer daytime hours into the evening, where it was more likely to be used for economically profitable activities. It didn't actually work very well, and honestly I can't say I've often found myself saying "Hmm, it's 8pm. I sure am glad I've got another hour of sunlight to work with!"
Enough already!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever time you choose will adversely affect someone.
So pick one, and let those affected adapt to one time. It is the swapping back and forth twice a year that I object to. Feeling exhausted for a week, the loss of productivity, the increase in a auto accidents, the increase in illness.
It is time to end this foolishness.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't care if we use Daylight, or Standard time! Just pick one and stick with it.
Whatever time you choose will adversely affect someone.
Which is precisely why the correct answer is to put it in the middle, half way between the two. But I don't see that option on many people's list of options.
(Either that or just leave it as-is)
Re: (Score:3)
I assure you most of us don't care in the slightest what the eventual offset ends up being as long as we stop.
Re: (Score:2)
The big one, is that:
A state cannot choose to be on "Permanent DST" on it's own. (Either by change their federally assigned standard timezone; or by ignore federally assigned DST cutover dates)
A state CAN choose to be on "Standard Time" on it's own. (Choose not to opt-in to DST )
That is why Florida went for permanent DST, because even if it passed, it could not be enacted.
By choosing standard time year round, ANY state can immediately change.
By proposing DST year round (changing standard timezone), the stat
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's really interesting. I don't like all the fooling around with the clocks myself, I'd much rather people pick something, even if it splits the difference, and then just leave it alone. The natural seasonal changes are gradual and naturally accomodated.
But I don't work to a clock so whatever. I used to work from 6am, this last bit I start around 7am. I eat when I'm hungry and drink when I'm dry. As the sun starts to rise earlier I'll probably be working from 6am again, and maybe even 5 ish. Shrug.
Re: (Score:3)
Can't say I agree. In the summer, sure. Who really cares whether there's an extra hour of sunlight before 5am or after 8pm? If you want more daylight, start earlier, you'll have a whole extra hour to yourself before you have to go to work.
But clock-time is far more relevant in the winter, when sunlight is at a premium. And standard time works best then - away from the coasts it's fricking cold and miserable out before the sun comes up, while thermal lag means it's not nearly so bad in the evenings. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
But clock-time is far more relevant in the winter, when sunlight is at a premium. And standard time works best then.
Not for me it doesn't. For almost 2 months I get up in the dark, arrive at work in the dark, work all day when the sun is out, then go home in the dark. With DST year round I would at least get a small amount of sunlight during that time. For the record I am willing to accept this being the case, we we can simply stop the foolishness. As I said in my original post, no matter what you choose, someone will be adversely affected.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for writing my post so I didn't have to.
This is a false dicotomy, w/teniuous counterpoints (Score:2)
First of all, Why would we stick with Daylight-Savings Time instead of Standard Time? In my mind. it makes more sense to stick with Standard Time, as much as I like DST. We don't have to pick DST over ST.
Second of all, the idea that people hate getting up in the dark is a stupid one, because it usually is dark when you get up during the winter. The sun only really comes out once you get to work/school. Meaning you TOTALLY miss any daylight anyways.
The big impact here is the losing an hour of sleep, which we
Re: (Score:2)
My reaction as well. I personally don't like it staying light until 9pm with DST. Leave standard time alone. You won't have the issue with the mornings, AND you still get a longer evening because, you know, that's how the seasons work.
Re: (Score:2)
Choosing permanent DST rather than Standard Time year round, is likely because a State can choose to be on standard time year round, by themselves, without federal approval.
A state cannot change it's standard time zone (federal law).
A state cannot change DST transition dates (federal law)
So, by advocating permanent DST, a state can vocally complain, and even posture by passing a non-binding resolution to use DST year round, so that "We would like to listen to you, but we can't because the federal gov't won'
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really imagine you could sway a majority of the population to support a third option? Or even a majority of Representatives?
There's an infinite spectrum of additional options, but only two that have a realistic chance of garnering public support.
AKA, there is no *realistic* third option.
Health effects of permanent DST (Score:5, Informative)
Living on the get-up-before-the-sun side of a time zone has negative public health effects. Permanent DST would amplify that.
How living on the wrong side of a time zone can be hazardous to your health [washingtonpost.com]
Health risk warnings ignored as B.C. moves to permanent daylight time, researchers say [www.cbc.ca]
Whats the point of a clock... (Score:2)
... if it doesn't tell a reasonable approximation of the time? Why put the clocks forward to fool people into thinking that getting up at 6am is actually 7am? How about the clocks don't change and people get their lazy backsides out of bed at 6am instead! I know, radical!
Clock changes serve no useful purpose and just messes everyone around twice a year not to mention the hassle it is to account for it in schedule based IT systems (speaking from personal experience)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great example of the weirdness surrounding this issue. You call people lazy for not getting up an hour earlier, then claim that the time change messes everyone up... because they have to get up an hour earlier.
All the "just change the schedule, not the clock!" people are absolutely free to do this. Just don't change your clock and remember that you have to do everything an hour earlier than the number displayed.
Unless Americans have clock inspectors that demand entry to your home twice a year to m
Re: (Score:2)
Messes everyone up in the sense of remembering to reset clocks and watches and changing sleep patterns.
And I'm not american. DST is used in europe too in case you didn't know.
Re: Whats the point of a clock... (Score:2)
Time is an artificial construct that means nothing unless we say it does.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise midday stands for middle of the day - ie when the sun is at its zenith? Day, night and the position of the sun are not artificial constructs. HTH.
Re: (Score:2)
Physics says otherwise.
Time*keeping* is an arbitrary construct - just like feet or meters, kilograms or pounds, etc.etc.etc. The way we choose to measure such properties are arbitrary, but the properties themselves are not. If you don't believe me, try getting hit by a speeding bus that you've defined as massing only 0.1 ziglets and traveling at a measly 0.002 krenks per thrum.
Re: (Score:2)
Correction - I should say that aside from days, years, and lunar months time keeping is arbitrary. All three of those units have very non-arbitrary real-world relevance.
I know it's an insane idea but... (Score:3)
... why not keep the country on Standard Time year-round and move the school/work day start times to something more optimal for the available daylight?
Since when was 8AM made the National Start Work/School Time? I seem to have missed that bit of legislation.
Re: (Score:2)
A standardized work day is extremely useful (read, profitable) for coordinating between businesses. Not everyone does it, but most businesses benefit from doing so.
Meanwhile, the primary purpose of school is as a daycare center so parents can contribute to the economy (if education were the important part, there would be much better funding and standards), so it pretty much has to start at the same time too. Letting out early is more acceptable as most school-age children are far more capable of looking o
Clocks and the sun. (Score:2)
Summer and winter hours (Score:2)
Get rid of DST and let schools and businesses have summer and winter hours
Re: (Score:2)
So, people with work and/or kids in school would have to adjust their sleeping hours to these anyway? It's just the same then as changing clocks.
Welcome to Canada (Score:2)
We already do this in the north!!! (Score:2)
"Parents were suddenly sending their kids to school in the cold and the dark for months on end."
Parents in the North already have to do this.
It doesn't matter if you're in standard time - it is dark until 8 - 8:30 AM in December and stays that way until at least February.
And if it is dark when they go in to school and work, then it being dark for an extra hour after that, will not matter to anyone.
The solution is so simple. (Score:5, Funny)
Solve the worst part of the problem (Score:2)
IMO the worse part of the problem is the "lurch" from one time to another; get rid of that and I bet most people wouldn't mind (or even notice) so much.
Instead of a one hour jump, we could achieve the same effect by moving clocks 25-30 seconds per day, in the middle of the night. We would get all of the upsides of switching the time, but it'd happen so gradually that nobody would ever really notice or feel the pain of the big leaps in time.
This change could be implemented algorithmically, but it might just
Self adjusting clocks (Score:2)
What if most clocks that people use were self adjusting and could adjust by 20 mins/mo for three months of the year, remain stable for 3 months, then adjust again over 3 months. then remain stable over three months? Imagine, if we had that world where most of the primary time display devices were automatic...
Man, what a world that would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem not solved, do you have any idea how hard it would be to keep track of 50 states and what time they are in? This means that if you had a meeting, you would have to look up their location first or keep track of it in your head. Most people would be opposed to that idea.
Then you go back to something like the days of early railroads where every location (state) has its own time, which is the reason why time zones and time standardization is used in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
"Problem not solved, do you have any idea how hard it would be to keep track of 50 states and what time they are in? This means that if you had a meeting, you would have to look up their location first or keep track of it in your head. Most people would be opposed to that idea."
So your client base is only within your state/timezone.
Try having co-workers and clients all over the world. It's pretty much already "let States decide ... and publish". Read States as other countries.
I vote UTC all over. We will be
Re: (Score:2)
Then you still have to do that and do subtraction in your head.
Re: (Score:2)
We've invented this thing called artificial lighting and most structures are designed such that you're going to have that lighting on regardless of what it looks like outside.
Unless you have to go outdoors. Away from the basement.
Re: (Score:2)
The tricky bit is that, in about half the world, the solar day will span 2400, meaning that the solar day will occupy two distinct calendar days.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha, melodrama!
Is Phoenix Arizona also a monument to man's arrogance? https://www.reddit.com/r/funny... [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC 'midnight' means rhe time when the full moon is at its.
You've played too much minecraft. I assure you the moon's orbit cares very little about what side of the earth is in the sun.
Re: (Score:2)
The *full* moon however, very much does - it occurs when the moon lies directly opposite the sun from the Earth, and thus the side facing the Earth is fully lit, and the spot on Earth directly underneath it is exactly opposite the sun. (Technically the full moon lasts for only the single instant when the three bodies are in alignment)
Re: (Score:3)
It causes an average of 30 deaths per year. https://www.aeaweb.org/article... [aeaweb.org]