3 ms·

Daylight Saving Time will cost me money?

6 points by timf 17y ago

jrockway 17y ago
Wait, are you saying that if I wanted an extra hour of daylight after work, I could just leave work an hour earlier? Inconceivable.
- nfnaaron 17y ago
  I had this same thought during my twice yearly meditation on Daylight Savings Time. I concluded that most peoples' jobs do not allow them to leave an hour earlier merely because they want to. DST is probably the least disruptive way to keep everyone on the same page, and give them that extra hour of daylight per night (or dark in the morning). And at $3.29 per year (in Indiana) it's a bargain. I guess we could stay on DST year round ...
jackowayed 17y ago
The average cost was $3.29 per household for the whole year. That's nothing. Yeah, the transition kinda sucks, but overall, I like it. The sun rises early enough for me in the summer as it is (close to 5 at its earliest). I really have no desire for it to rise at 4, like it would if we weren't an hour ahead during the summer. Similarly, I really like that it stays light out until 8:30 or 9 P.M. in the summer. Yes, I'm a night owl, but I don't think there are many people who are more likely to benefit from sunlight at 4a than from sunlight at 8p. The increased standard of living I get out of that sunlight shift is worth far more than $3.29 to me.
- codexon 17y ago
  The main reason DST was enacted in the US (and I suspect in many other places) was to save energy during WW1, WW2 and the OPEC oil crisis. Now that we know it doesn't save money or energy, the government has no reason to be imposing an erratic clock on society that costs more money and pollution. If you want to get up earlier to benefit only 1 extra hour of dim daylight, that should be my choice, not yours. Not to mention that most people would probably be inside watching TV or eating dinner around 6:00-9:00 PM anyway.
ghshephard 17y ago
I wonder if farmers, who have to pay attention to their use of daylight hours, shift milking hours, feeding times, etc.. based on DST, or whether they just do stuff when it makes sense for the animals based on the season? I.E. "Milk at Dawn + 30 minutes" because that's when the animals are ready. (Substitute actual optimal time for milking for "Dawn + 30 minutes".) It's unfortunate so much of our time at work is centered around meetings at particular times, otherwise we could all just ignore the machinations of the government, and just do stuff when it makes sense to each of us based on our own circadian rythm and the season.
- wglb 17y ago
  For that reason, rural counties are very much not in favor of DST.

6 points by timf 17y ago

Wait, are you saying that if I wanted an extra hour of daylight after work, I could just leave work an hour earlier? Inconceivable.

nfnaaron 17y ago
I had this same thought during my twice yearly meditation on Daylight Savings Time. I concluded that most peoples' jobs do not allow them to leave an hour earlier merely because they want to. DST is probably the least disruptive way to keep everyone on the same page, and give them that extra hour of daylight per night (or dark in the morning). And at $3.29 per year (in Indiana) it's a bargain. I guess we could stay on DST year round ...

jackowayed 17y ago

The average cost was $3.29 per household for the whole year. That's nothing. Yeah, the transition kinda sucks, but overall, I like it. The sun rises early enough for me in the summer as it is (close to 5 at its earliest). I really have no desire for it to rise at 4, like it would if we weren't an hour ahead during the summer. Similarly, I really like that it stays light out until 8:30 or 9 P.M. in the summer. Yes, I'm a night owl, but I don't think there are many people who are more likely to benefit from sunlight at 4a than from sunlight at 8p. The increased standard of living I get out of that sunlight shift is worth far more than $3.29 to me.

codexon 17y ago
The main reason DST was enacted in the US (and I suspect in many other places) was to save energy during WW1, WW2 and the OPEC oil crisis. Now that we know it doesn't save money or energy, the government has no reason to be imposing an erratic clock on society that costs more money and pollution. If you want to get up earlier to benefit only 1 extra hour of dim daylight, that should be my choice, not yours. Not to mention that most people would probably be inside watching TV or eating dinner around 6:00-9:00 PM anyway.

ghshephard 17y ago

I wonder if farmers, who have to pay attention to their use of daylight hours, shift milking hours, feeding times, etc.. based on DST, or whether they just do stuff when it makes sense for the animals based on the season? I.E. "Milk at Dawn + 30 minutes" because that's when the animals are ready. (Substitute actual optimal time for milking for "Dawn + 30 minutes".) It's unfortunate so much of our time at work is centered around meetings at particular times, otherwise we could all just ignore the machinations of the government, and just do stuff when it makes sense to each of us based on our own circadian rythm and the season.

wglb 17y ago
For that reason, rural counties are very much not in favor of DST.