I'm not a fan of the clock shifting twice a year but perhaps someone can explain why they'd make daylight savings permanent instead of just abolishing it?
Covid-19 has shown that stores/businesses are perfectly capable of adjusting their hours and people have minimal issues handing that change. Why not just standard time everywhere. Seems like more mucking about for "reasons".
In short, because DST better aligns with most people's day schedules than standard time does because it adds daylight time in the evening instead of in the morning (I'd love a better source than this[0], but it matches the rationale I've always heard).
> DST better aligns with most people's day schedules
I'd like to see that studied closely in light of the fact that 1 in 3 Americans suffers from chronic sleep deprivation.
And just because people have earlier schedules doesn't mean that they operate well with earlier schedules -- and because society programs us for decades to wake up earlier and to view oversleeping as sloth just asking people what their preferred sleep schedule is may bias results. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that half the people in this thread who think they really want that hour of light at the end of the day wouldn't function much better if they got more sleep in the morning.
There's also the asymmetry where people who are early risers want that extra hour of light in the evening -- at the cost of the late sleepers suffering chronic sleep deprivation and all the related health costs ("I want an extra hour of light, and you dying early of a heart attack is a small cost to pay for that").
It's not arbitrary, it's based on sunlight. The sun sets our mental clocks.
This is why a lot of people advice against using screens late at night—because they contain a lot more blue light than regular household lights, and thus throw our bodies out of balance. But, those are still much smaller light sources than the sun!
Yesterday my wife and kid were trying to go for a walk in the neighborhood before the light ended and the sun set. My work expects me to be callable until 5. I sent them out without me at 4, the sun sets here around 4:30. I never left the house. I would pay actual money to get that hour back and be on DST year round.
I would be interested to see if the split of opinion on this has to do with early risers/night owl orientation primarily, for me more light earlier has almost no value, but light at the end of the work day is worth a lot.
> for me more light earlier has almost no value, but light at the end of the work day is worth a lot.
I agree with this, but why wouldn't we stay on standard time and just all switch to starting school and work an hour earlier?
It would achieve the same thing as permanent DST except it would also preserve the property of our time system that midnight and noon are the times that the sun is lowest and highest in the sky.
Changing time is less expensive than billions of schedules. Noon at solar noon is already broken for so many people, I'm not sure it matters if its off a little more. I do find both equally arbitrary though.
Making DST permanent effectively shifts all of the U.S. one timezone eastward (so EDT = UTC+4, PDT = UTC+7, instead of +5 and +8 for their standard time equivalents). People seem to prefer the earlier timezone (which gives extra daylight in the evening at the expense of the morning), and it also makes collaboration with Europe a bit easier.
I certainly prefer it, but I think it's too soon to say that "people" prefer it, unless you are aware of some kind of public poll that asked the question.
WA/OR/CA are set to go DST permanently as soon as the federal government allows them to. Wonder where all the states’ rights small government politicians are.
I don't understand the sentiment. The reason we're set to follow the federal standard is because we voted for it on a ballot measure. (CA) So we're obviously exercising states rights.
I will say, however, that the ballot measure was confused by the arguments, with both sides arguing against time changes.
>Proposition 12 (1949), a ballot initiative that established DST in California, needed to be repealed. In California, a ballot initiative cannot be repealed without the consent of voters. Therefore, the state legislature could not take action to change time policy unless voters approved Proposition 7. This applied to both permanent daylight savings time and permanent standard time.[1]
As I understand, Prop 7 was needed to undo Prop 12, which then gave the CA state legislature the power to go with DST all year around, which they have indicated they want to since 2016:
>In 2016, the California State Legislature asked the President and Congress to pass an act that would allow California to adopt year-round DST.[2]
It seems that it's the federal government preventing the states from doing what they want to do, hence my quip about states' rights.
As someone else posted, there's been several passed initiatives about moving to permanent DST; and no passed initiatives (that I'm aware of) about moving to permanent standard time.
I would prefer standard time, but I'll accept any time as long as days are always 86400 seconds (+/- 1 second). I'm willing to have a separate discussion about leap seconds, but that seems like it's being determined by concensus among national standards bodies, not democratic action, so I have less influence.
Frankly, I just think people are wrong about this. It's surprisingly difficult to mentally think through what "moving time" really means. Having more sunlight in the evening seems good, but people forget that means you're effectively waking up earlier (where "earlier" is relative to the internal clock which is set by the sun, which we can't change).
There's a lot of variation based on what part of time zones people live in (and how far north they are).
Here we have a month where daylight isn't a whole lot better than 8:00-5:00, so it's always amusing to hear people say that they like it to be daylight when they wake up (so 1.5 hours less sun here than San Francisco today, which is where the last person I saw with that complaint lives).
Until Europe also switches to DST permanently, which will almost certainly happen if the US does it. I reckon if any developed country does it then all others would follow within a few years at most.
I hate that it's permanent DST, though. Why make noon at one hour past the sun at its highest point? So annoying.
> I hate that it's permanent DST, though. Why make noon at one hour past the sun at its highest point? So annoying.
I have a friend that is also annoyed by this prospect, but I never could understand why. I mean I can see why people have opinions based on morning/evening light, but is "high noon should be noon" really that big a deal? I mean even if the center of every timezone had high noon set at noon, you'd still end up having the edges of the same timezone having their high noon closer to 11:30 and 12:30. The fact is that local times have had their high noon disassociated from 12:00 for quite a while. Other than the principle of the thing, I just don't see why having around 1:00 really is such a bother.
edit: I really can't understand why you're being downvoted. Your frustration shouldn't be ignored.
Your argument is that it doesn't matter. So in that case why not pick the one that actually makes sense according to the motion of the solar system? If I have to make a choice between two equally logical solutions, I always pick the most beautiful or most symmetrical. Why not?
Never did I argue that it does not matter. In fact I didn't even take a position on the matter. I specifically asked _you_ about _your_ beliefs.
> So in that case why not pick the one that actually makes sense according to the motion of the solar system? If I have to make a choice between two equally logical solutions, I always pick the most beautiful or most symmetrical. Why not?
Why not? As I pointed out, there are other considerations at play like morning/evening light. You apparently believe that the balance of beauty and symmetry with the solar system is the most important consideration. I don't personally consider that very important.
Changing the clock does not alter the amount of daylight. I'm sure you don't need to go and adjust your clock now to convince yourself of this. So what considerations are there? It simply does not matter. The only single reason I can think to choose one clock over another is that one synchronises with the solar system and one does not. I don't consider it more important than anything else because there is nothing else to consider.
> Changing the clock does not alter the amount of daylight. I'm sure you don't need to go and adjust your clock now to convince yourself of this.
I never stated otherwise.
> The only single reason I can think to choose one clock over another is that one synchronises with the solar system and one does not.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse? Having extra daylight in the morning (i.e. pre-12:00) and the afternoon (i.e. post 12:00) are reasons. The amount of light before and after school/work/etc. has real effects.
> ...there is nothing else to consider.
This is factually untrue. You may not consider other reasons as important as your own, but stop pretending they don't exist.
By the way, you are an extremely irritating person to discuss with. I started this conversation specifically to hear your side and you are taking the opportunity to ignore and belittles ideas other than your own. It's pretty childish honestly.
> By the way, you are an extremely irritating person to discuss with. I started this conversation specifically to hear your side and you are taking the opportunity to ignore and belittles ideas other than your own. It's pretty childish honestly.
I feel exactly the same way about you.
This issue is fascinating as it seems people just can't talk about it rationally. I will stop now.
Personally, I totally agree with you that 12:00 should be roughly when the sun is at its highest. I suspect that's not a major consideration for most people, however.
In the UK we have already tried "permanent DST" (if that's what you want to call it): we were on UTC+1 through three winters: 1968-1971. From what I've heard, the Scots hated it and, according to Wikipedia, "on a free vote, the House of Commons voted by 366 to 81 votes to end the experiment".
I think Ireland joined in the experiment back then. There's a similar problem to the problem with Brexit: it would annoy some people if Northern Ireland were to have a different time from Ireland, and it would annoy some people if Northern Ireleand were to have a different time from the rest of the UK. I think all-year UTC would make a lot more sense and be generally more acceptable for the British Isles (UK + Ireland) than all-year UTC+1.
I also think Spain should consider switching to UTC. Some poeple claim they only switched to UTC+1 in the first place because of Franco's friendship with Hitler.
The reason I hear most often when this comes up: People like having more "sunshine" hours after their work day is done. DST provides an extra hour than standard time.
If a goal is for a myriad companies and entities of all shapes and sizes and with wildly differing priorities, timelines and focus, to all do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time... isn't a government decree exactly the right tool for the job?
> If a goal is for a myriad companies and entities of all shapes and sizes and with wildly differing priorities, timelines and focus, to all do exactly the same thing at exactly the same time
Liiiiike making everybody move over to DST before making the time permanent?
I mean, sure, we're pretty used to doing it, but that's a sunk cost fallacy, isn't it? Better to freeze the time zones before forcing everyone going through it?
Honestly, I'd like it if it went down earlier; it's fun to have a drink outside in the twilight and night hours while still going to bed at a reasonable hour (which is around 10, in my case).
I can do that in the winter, sure, but in the summer there's a distinct lack of snow, which is nice.
Very few jobs let people do that (assuming you'd also get up when the sun rises) and the number of hours of sleep you'd get each day would vary seasonally.
That's an incredibly insensitive statement to make considering how many people have light induced insomnia. They suffer greatly during the summer months to make it easier for other people to play golf after work. Just because you enjoy something doesn't mean everyone enjoys the same thing or that it is free from consequences to others that you don't have to endure yourself.
Where I live it rises at 4am and sets at 10pm in the summer. I'd actually love to live somewhere where it is like that all year around, but maybe that's just because right now it's 9am - 4pm.
(I am pretty much straddling 70 degrees north as I type this - sun last seen Nov 23rd, comes back in two weeks. Midnight sun between May 17th and July 26th.)
Um, no? For example, in Alaska during the summer (in the northern hemisphere) there's a period of the year where they have sunlight 24 hours a day. In winter, they have 24 hours of darkness.
So no, it's not a "south" thing (until you get to, for example, Antarctica). The closer to the equator, the less extreme the changes are.
EDIT: I see your addition in specifying the sunset time right now, whereas the rest of the thread seems to be aimed at the extremes, which will be closer to the summer and winter solstices. We just passed the winter solstice, so of course the sun will be going down quite early (in the northern hemisphere).
The point I was (clumsily, as it were) trying to make was that one man's north is another man's south - the sun setting (at summer solstice) at 11pm is something happening way south of where I am currently at - but, apparently, way north of wherever the person I was replying to was at. :)
The interesting thing is the person sponsoring the bill is from FL, where I don't think it matters to them which time to keep as much. For more Northern latitudes, both have issues for particular times of the year (like the sun coming up at 4:00 AM in the summer in most of NY State if we stuck to Standard time).
But I also think this person is choosing DST over ST because, in 2019, Florida passed a law to make DST the normal time. Of course, it was symbolic because a state can't choose to be on DST (only to stay on ST): https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/state/florida-passed-a-bi...
Seems like you could flip a coin. Daylight saving time is bad for some longitudes and latitudes in the winter, standard time is bad for other longitudes and latitudes in the summer.
I don’t think it matters in the grand scheme of things which one you pick: it’s going to suck for some.
No officially but for practical reasons they follow what the US does in regards to time. There was no widespread support for expanding the range of daylight saving time during the early 2000s but when George W. Bush changed the start and end dates of DSL to make it look like he was doing something about energy prices, Canada followed along. Given the size and depths of the ties between the two countries, it's impractical for Canada to not be in sync with the US on matters of time.
I think it's pretty safe to assume that a lot of places would follow the US's example if this law passes, and Canada is by far the most likely to do so. I don't think the US is responsible for that, per se, but it's not crazy to treat it as a given that Canada would follow suit.
This is being pushed by Florida politicians who want later sunsets in the winter, which is better for tourism (and general quality of life for many residents there). If you are on the Western part of a timezone (e.g. Michigan), you may prefer to be in standard time all year long, or prefer the status quo or just not care either way.
On the coastal side of the enormous Eastern Time Zone, I like the idea of permanent EDT or the proposed AST. Permanent DST (nationwide) is slightly better for New England than AST, because it avoids the hassle of being in a different time zone than New York, D.C., et al. On the other hand, it's probably not as good for, say, Indianapolis.
Creating new time zones split north/south is a possible solution here. I would prefer that to any option that involves changing the clocks twice a year.
as much as I would like DST to be the standard, I would find it absolutely awesome where, if Congress can agree to one or the other but not which, a binding coinflip were done to decide which one wins.
In the real world, shrewd business lobbies certainly have too much interest one way or the other to let fate decide.
I'm in the camp that wants "permanent DST" - like others have said, I prefer the light after work, into the dinner hours. I live in the southern US and at winter solstice, it's dark by 6pm. So strange.
It's more politically viable to give people an hour after work to shop, even though it's far more healthy to wake up in the sunlight rather than darkness, and it's asinine to make children walk to school in the dark.
Except it is not just a name: standard time is supposed to indicate that the sun is at its zenith at noon somewhere in a timezone. If we do not care about that, why not abolish all timezones while we are at it?
It is just a name. No one has cared about solar noon since the 19th century, when every town set their own clock. The point of timezones is for everyone to work from the same reference with respect to train schedules, originally, and now flights, phone calls, bank hours, etc.
And daylight time is that plus one hour. They're both standardized somehow or other, that's not the point. The error bars on that relationship with the noonday sun are large enough that neither daylight time nor standard time actually fit that definition anyway. Time zones cover an hour-wide area, and orbital mechanics of the Earth and Sun cause noon to drift a lot throughout the year.
Both are workable, but one is more familiar, and that's daylight time.
If it’s always daylight saving time, then that is the standard time. We use daylight saving time 2/3 of the year already. Staying on DST is the least disruptive option.
“Daylight savings time” is a bit of a misnomer as commonly used, particularly in this case. What people generally find frustrating, and what this change is addressing, is the twice-yearly time change. People (and businesses and the like) will still schedule things when it makes sense for them. Whether a meeting is at 9:00 or 10:00 or some other number isn’t the real point.
Most geeks have at some point been nocturnal, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. We therefore recognise that the clock is just an instrument showing the current approximate position of the sun and nothing else. But normal people sort of, well, worship the clock. The clock tells them when to get up and when to come home. It's kinda lame, but it is what it is.
People work together on things during the day and also happen to want to be able to visit stores and businesses around the same time every day. Also people sleep at night because it's easier to sleep in the dark than in the light. It sounds pompous to act like the clock is some sort of religious ritual and how anyone that wakes up in the morning to go to a 9-5 job is just a sheep. Most people like being awake when other people are awake so every one can do things together. Just like how NTP helps synchronize devices across the internet, regular clocks help people do the same.
Eh, it's just saying whether we'll stay an extra +0100 from UTC or not. I don't see a big deal. If people prefer the extra daylight in summer overall, then I don't really see it making a big difference.
I'm one of those people who would much prefer more sunlight in the afternoon, even at the expense of less sunlight in the morning. Sign me up for this bill.
I don't mind either way, but it does make a difference for coordinating meetings and for international commerce.
Adding 1 hr is advantageous because it will give the Americas (UTC -8 to -5, minus Hawaii and Alaska) an extra usable overlap hour for meetings with Europe (~UTC 0 to +2), and with Asia-Pacific (~UTC +8 to +9) for 18 weeks of the year.
Europe observes daylight savings, but Asia largely doesn't [1]
Covid-19 has shown that stores/businesses are perfectly capable of adjusting their hours and people have minimal issues handing that change. Why not just standard time everywhere. Seems like more mucking about for "reasons".