I view DST as a clever hack to solve an otherwise intractable coordination problem: getting everyone to shift their schedules to not waste all that extra mornin

I view DST as a clever hack to solve an otherwise intractable coordination problem: getting everyone to shift their schedules to not waste all that extra morning daylight in the summer. As for the proposal of permanent DST, I would like that personally but I think that too many people would have a problem with kids going to school in pitch darkness in the winter and whatnot. The theoretical ideal would be that standard business hours continuously adjust so that they always start soon after dawn. That maximizes the amount of after-work sunlight, without sacrificing daytime sunlight. Despite the existence of people who prefer early morning daylight, I think that maximizes social efficiency. Of course it's not (currently) practical to continuously adjust, so DST is a coarse approximation. I do appreciate the ridiculousness of changing the clocks instead of changing our schedules. But I think it's impossible to coordinate the change in schedules. You'd have too many defectors and the whole thing would fall apart. Think about the massive interdependence: work schedules, daycare, trains, social activities, etc etc. It really has to happen all together en masse or it doesn't work. Whether it's worth the hassle (and, yes, the real cost in lost productivity and sleep disruption) is of course still debatable but I think those declaring it pure insanity haven't fully thought it through. PS: Interesting exception that proves the rule: Arizona opts out of DST because it gets so hot in the afternoon and evening that people actually prefer the early morning daylight.