All the schools around where I live start between 7 and 8, which means kids are waiting for busses and walking between 6 and 7.
Sunrise will be at 7:12 tomorrow. Sunrise would be around 8am at the latest if we kept DST year-round.
There is less sun during the winter. That is how it works. Just in general.
Also, whenever we try "year-round DST" we go back to "spring-forward"/"fall-back" because it sucks. Everyone says they want it until they get it. Whereas Arizona has gotten rid of DST and we don't hear anything about them. They got rid of it in the 60s.
The nation should follow suit.
And all of this is outside the fact that time zones in general are more political than practical. Which is another reason people think they want year-round DST. It's because they're probably in the wrong time zone.
> DST actually makes most sense in 30-40 degrees of latitude.
I am not arguing for having "year-round DST", nor for not having any DST at all. All I'm saying is this: at 50th parallel, there's plenty of daylight in the summer, and so: people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. At 25th parallel, there's not much variance between summer and winter, so again, people should just figure out what to do in the winter -- and stick with it all year round. It's in between -- or 30 to 40 -- that the summer daytime is both scarce and variable enough to make the twice-a-year change worthwhile.
Regarding your personal situation, I have no idea where you reside or what "the nation" is -- assuming US, I gather you have a "fall-back" change in three days, for a sunrise at 6:15am and up to 7am at the latest? If so, sounds like you've got it all figured out.
> DST exists so that the sun doesn't rise around 5am.
No, DST exists so the sun doesn't set around 6pm.
> And that seems to be what the argument boils down to: "I don't want it bright too early".
No, it's not "I", it's about "we the people", and "we the people" don't care as much about "bright too early", rather they care about "dark too early".
Here is a map of the offset between solar noon and civil noon[0]. The blue places have solar noon (sun in its highest position) before their local clocks show 12h00. The red places have solar noon after their clocks show that. The white places have it about the same time.
Several observations:
1. This is without DST. With DST, blue places turn red, and red places turn even more red.
2. The map is kinda outdated, the bluest most populous country -- Turkey -- moved an hour since, so now it's white at the east and red otherwise.
3. Greenland looks the size of Africa, which is a projection issue, in fact it's much smaller, and that's even before we talk about its minuscule population.
4. There are places like Recife in Brazil, where solar noon varies between 11h03 and 11h33, but they still have more than 12 hours of sunlight most of year, and never less than 11:45, so they hardly care.
5. The vast, vast majority of the world would rather have the solar noon after 12h00 -- meaning, more light in the evening than in the early morning. Santiago de Compostella has solar noon at 13h17 at the earliest and 14h40 at the latest, "relocating" around two hours.
6. The bluest city in the USA is probably Boston, and during standard time their solar noon is 11h30-11h59. During DST, it's 12h40-12h50.
Sunrise will be at 7:12 tomorrow. Sunrise would be around 8am at the latest if we kept DST year-round.
There is less sun during the winter. That is how it works. Just in general.
Also, whenever we try "year-round DST" we go back to "spring-forward"/"fall-back" because it sucks. Everyone says they want it until they get it. Whereas Arizona has gotten rid of DST and we don't hear anything about them. They got rid of it in the 60s.
The nation should follow suit.
And all of this is outside the fact that time zones in general are more political than practical. Which is another reason people think they want year-round DST. It's because they're probably in the wrong time zone.