Amazon founder Jeff Bezos introduces the new Amazon tablet called the Kindle Fire on September 28, 2011 in New York City.; Credit: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Say you're a warehouse worker at Amazon, not too happy with your job and thinking about quitting. The company offers you $5,000 to walk away. Sounds like a great deal, right?

The program, called Pay to Quit, offers Amazon workers who aren't committed to their jobs $2,000 in severance pay in the first year of employment, going up to $5,000 in the fourth year.

The existence of the program went public in a letter that Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos wrote to shareholders in 2013 released last week. The method behind the madness is that Amazon, which got the idea from Zappos, wants its workers to be happy, and therefore encourages employees who would rather not be there to leave.

Bezos said the intent is not to get rid of employees - the program actually has the headline 'Please Don't Take This Offer' - but to ensure that the employees who stay are happy and committed to their jobs.

According to a recent study by Gallup, employees who are "not engaged" or "actively disengaged" in their jobs cost the US economy $450 billion to $550 billion a year in lost productivity.

It sounds like a good deal for both sides but what happens when the money runs out? With unemployment still high, particularly in California, is it a good idea to take a small payoff to be back in the job market? How much would be enough to get you to quit your job? Would employees get a bigger payoff by getting themselves fired instead?

Guest: 

John Boudreau, Ph.D., Professor and Research Director at the University of Southern California's Marshall School of Business and Center for Effective Organizations; co-author of 'Beyond HR: The New Science of Human Capital'

Datuk Hishammuddin Hussein (L), acting Minister of Transport and Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak update the media on the search and rescue plan for the missing MAS Airlines flight MH370 during a press conference on March 15, 2014 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.; Credit: How Foo Yeen/Getty Images

Six weeks after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, the multinational search team has brought in an autonomous underwater drone to comb through the ocean floor for wreckage, launching the hunt in another direction.

The batteries in the plane’s black boxes are thought to have died. The search team last picked up last a “ping” from the transponders six days ago. While searchers have narrowed down an area around 230 square miles—and close to 1,000 miles northwest of Perth, to focus their search efforts on, it could still take months for the underwater robot to scour the entire expanse.

Cost of the search has reached $44 million, according to a Reuters analysis,and is on track to become the most expensive search in aviation history.

The Boeing 777 plane dropped off radar soon after takeoff from Kuala Lumpur on March 8. The flight was carrying 227 passengers and 12 crew members and was headed for Beijing.

What can we learn by salvaging the wreckage of the missing plane?

Guest: 

Captain Ross "Rusty" Aimer, former United Airlines pilot and CEO of Aero Consulting

Program facilitator Dan McSweeney gives a presentation about PTSD treatment December 15, 2009 at Fort Hamilton Army Garrison in Brooklyn, New York. The presentation and associated questionaire are part of the Military Pathways program, a free, anonymous mental health and alcohol self-assessment for troops, civilian employees, and their families. ; Credit: Chris Hondros/Getty Images

After this month's shooting rampage at Fort Hood, we learned the alleged gunman, Specialist Ivan Lopez,  was being assessed for post-traumatic stress disorder - despite having never seen combat during his four-month deployment to Iraq.

The Pentagon says 155,000 U.S. troops have PTSD - and that's just a sliver of the 7.7 million Americans said to suffer from it. So what exactly is PTSD and how has its definition changed over the years we've learned more about it?

The latest DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) defines it as a psychiatric disorder that can occur in people who have experienced (directly or indirectly) or witnessed a traumatic event such as a natural disaster, a serious accident, a violent event such as war/combat, sexual assault or other violent personal assault.

In some studies, people who developed PTSD sometimes experienced events that were not necessarily as traumatic as rape and combat, such as non-life-threatening auto accidents. Whatever the cause, the common consequences are flashbacks, emotional avoidance and hyperarousal.   

As we learn more about PTSD, will its diagnoses expand or be limited? Have you experienced PTSD? How have you communicated your diagnosis to people in your life?

Guest:

Dr. Richard J. McNally, Professor and Director of Clinical Training Harvard University’s Department of Psychology. He is a clinical psychologist, anxiety disorders and PTSD researcher, and the author of "What is Mental Illness?" and "Remembering Trauma."

Mission Court Grip signage during the game between the Houston Rockets and the Los Angeles Clippers at Staples Center on January 4, 2012 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: Stephen Dunn/Getty Images

Advertisements are everywhere at NBA games. There are digital signs on scorers’ tables, logos placed cleverly on backboard supports, and arenas with names like Staples Center and FedEx Forum. Now, the league plans to take things further—by allowing sponsors’ logos on players’ jerseys.

New NBA commissioner Adam Silver announced last month that ads on uniforms are likely coming in the next five years, pointing to international soccer and basketball clubs as precedent for turning players into billboards.

“We know what the value is to advertisers in a world of 1,000-plus channels to be able to show fans in-game branding,” Silver said.

Under the current proposal, each team is allowed one patch, and each patch would be 2.5 inches by 2.5 inches.

In 2011, as Deputy Commissioner, Silver estimated that putting logos on uniforms could be $100 million a year to the NBA. At the time, then-commissioner David Stern opposed the idea.

The WNBA started putting ads on jerseys in 2009. Los Angeles Sparks jerseys now display a Farmer’s Insurance logo where the team name used to be, which bothers some fans.

Should the NBA go the way of NASCAR and adorn athletes with corporate logos? Will ads on jerseys tarnish the NBA’s brand? How far is too far when it comes to this type of advertising?

Guest:

Paul Swangard, Managing Director, Warsaw Sports Marketing Center, University of Oregon

"War! What is it good For? Conflict and the progress of civilization from primates to robots" (April 2014) is Ian Morris' new book. Ian Morris is a professor of classics and history at Stanford University.

The lyrics to the popular Motown song "War!" aren't very ambiguous when it comes to what it's good for. Absolutely nothing. But historian and archaeologist Ian Morris would like to politely disagree.

In his new book, "War! What is it good for? Conflict and the progress of civilization from primates to robots," Morris lays out his arguments about why the deadly, messy business of war has actually been a good thing for human society. By studying history from the Stone Age through modern technology, Morris makes the case that, over the long run, war has made humanity safer and richer.

By fighting wars, stronger societies have absorbed weaker societies and installed governments that had a vested interest in keeping the peace. Essentially, war made governments and governments made peace.

In addition to making people safer and doubling the global lifespan, war has also made societies richer, writes Morris. Peaceful societies, made stronger by war, provide the foundations for economic prosperity and growth.

War may have helped human society get to where it is today but where will it take us in the future? As scientific and technological innovations continue to advance (hello robot soldiers!) will the next global war be too devastating to recover from? Will we ever be able to have a future without war?
 

Guest: 

Ian Morris, professor of classics and history at Stanford University and author of "War! What is it good for? Conflict and the progress of civilization from primates to robots" (April 2014)

Actors Michelle Fairley, Maisie Williams, Sophie Turner, Kit Harington, executive producer George R.R. Martin, actors Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, co-creator/executive producer David Banioff and co-creator/executive producer D.B. Weiss attend The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences' Presents An Evening With "Game of Thrones" at TCL Chinese Theatre on March 19, 2013 in Hollywood, California.; Credit: Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

The seventh and penultimate season of AMC’s “Mad Men” debuted over the weekend. Bring up that topic though at any modern American office and chances are you’ll be met with a polite, “please don’t tell me anything about it.”

Spoilers for TV shows, movies, sports events are everywhere these days: online, on Twitter, and in innocuous conversations between coworkers. The changing nature of entertainment consumption, like binging an entire season of a TV show after it airs or DVR-ing something to watch later, for instance, has also produced more spoilers than ever before.  

How do you avoid spoilers? As avid culture vultures, how should we behave to not spoil season finales or important plot points for others?

Guest: 

Eric Ravenscraft, writer at the popular blog, Lifehacker, who has written about the topic for the site

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group II co-chairman Chris Field (2nd L) at a press conference after the 10th plenary of the IPCC Working Group II in Yokohama, suburban Tokyo on March 31, 2014. Soaring carbon emissions will amplify the risk of conflict, hunger, floods and migration this century, the UN's expert panel said in a landmark report on the impact of climate change; Credit: YOSHIKAZU TSUNO/AFP/Getty Images

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its new report on Sunday laying out the staggering realities of the impact of climate change. The UN's expert panel said that increases in CO2, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels, pushed global temperatures up by an average of 2.2 percent a year between 2000 and 2010.

If nothing changes, we could see global temperatures rise by 5 to 7 degrees fahrenheit by 2100. The consequences of such a rise would be devastating for many nations around the world.

Tucked into the report is an assessment of how much it would cost for governments around the world to switch from fossil fuels to zero- or low-carbon sources including wind and solar power.

The IPCC's chairman called the cost "relatively modest" and said it's well within our reach. In order to achieve the necessary reduction in CO2, the UN panel said that investment in fossil fuels would drop by about $30 billion annually while investments in low-carbon sources would grow by $147 billion.

The costs may be called 'modest' but are governments willing to make the investments necessary to keep global CO2 emissions in check? Secretary of State John Kerry called the investments a global economic opportunity but will the US be a leader in investing in renewable energy? How much will it really cost to prevent a catastrophic temperatures rise?

Guest: 

Andrew Steer, President and CEO of the World Resources Institute and formerly the Special Envoy for climate change at the World Bank

An attendee uses a Google Glass during the White House Youth Summit at the White House December 4, 2013 in Washington, DC. ; Credit: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Today, a limited number of U.S. residents can buy Google Glasses - without an invite. At a price of $1,500, the Internet-connected headset can be yours, but just how many people want to own them?

A recent survey by market research firm Toluna showed 72 percent of Americans don't want the glasses because of privacy concerns. Today, Consumer Watchdog outlined its top 10 worries about Google Glasses, including stalking and safety issues.

Will Google overcome the concerns by introducing the product slowly but surely?

Guest: 

John M. Simpson, Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project Director

Jeremy Kaplan, Editor-in-chief, Digital Trends - news and review site focused on technology

How will doctor satisfaction be impacted by the Affordable Care Act?; Credit: Photo by Alex Proimos via Flickr Creative Commons

Medicine has long been a popular career path for the best and brightest students, but most U.S. doctors today are unhappy in their jobs—and 90 percent are unwilling to recommend the healthcare profession to others.

Growing doctor dissatisfaction comes as millions of Americans have new access to health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, and there are not enough physicians to meet this new demand. 

Forty-three percent of doctors say they are considering retiring due to transformative changes happening in the U.S. health care system, according to surveys by The Doctors Company, a physician liability insurer.

Primary care doctors are stretched thin, spending more on processing insurance forms and spending less time with patients. The average ‘face time’ between physician and patient is only about 12 minutes.

More doctors are abandoning the profession—joining MBA programs to transition into management, or taking jobs in finance or elsewhere. Young medical professionals select high-paying specialties, aiming for early retirement. Suicide rates for physicians are higher than those of the general public.

Why are doctors so dissatisfied with their jobs?  How have recent changes in health care made life harder for primary care physicians? Is health care becoming a less desirable profession? What can be done to keep doctors from burning out?

Guests:

Dr. Lotte Dyrbye, MD , Professor at Mayo Clinic. She has authored many studies looking at the well-being of both med students and physicians in practice

Dr. Stephen Schimpff, MD, internist and former CEO of University of Maryland Medical Center, author of the upcoming book "The Crisis in Primary Care"

A pupil holds the hand of her mother in the courtyard of Jean Mermoz school on September 4, 2012 prior enter in his classroom for an early start of the new school year in Marseille, southern France. ; Credit: ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/Getty Images

The conventional wisdom holds that children who have very involved parents do better in school. But one new study is challenging that assumption by saying that too much parental involvement might actually be harming their child's grades and test scores.

Common parental behavior including observing a child's class, contacting a school about a child's behavior, helping to decide a child's high school courses, or helping a child with homework don't help a student's performance in school.

Parental engagement is often touted in public policy as a way to help boost test scores and close the racial achievement gap. It's the focal point of both federal 'No Child Left Behind' and 'Race to the Top' programs but academic studies have been very inconclusive about whether it actually works.

So how can parents set their kids up for educational success? Is the modern 'helicopter' parent actually harming their child's educational experience? How do teachers feel about the level of parental involvement in their classes?

Guest:

Keith Robinson, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas, Austin and lead author of The Broken Compass: Parental Involvement with Children's Education

Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck speaks during news conference at LAPD headquarters, Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2014, in downtown Los Angeles. ; Credit: Reed Saxon/AP

Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck joins Larry for AirTalk’s monthly check-in.

This month AirTalk addresses a number of concerns including reports of Los Angeles police officers tampering with voice recording equipment in patrol cars. How does the police department plan to deal with this issue?

Earlier this month Police Chief Beck announced his interest in a second term as police chief.

Mayor Eric Garcetti released his first budget proposal this week. The proposal calls an overhaul of Los Angeles’ 911 dispatch system.  How could this impact the Police Department?

Guest:

Charlie Beck, Chief of Los Angeles Police Department

An FDA committee unanimously approved recommending the pap smear be replaced with a HPV test in March.; Credit: Photo by Alex Proimos via Flickr Creative Commons

After an FDA committee approved unanimously  to recommend that the Pap smear be replaced with a HPV test in March, the company behind the high-tech test has asked the Food and Drug Administration to adopt it as a first-choice screening tool to detect cervical cancer, a move that has angered many patient groups.

The cobas HPV test, made by Roche, uses DNA to detect the human papillomarvirus, or HPV--the main cause of cervical cancer. The technology has been available for years, and is frequently used along with the Pap smear by doctors. Roche wants the FDA to approve the test as the first screening tool used by doctors, which could eventually phase out the mainstay Pap smear, what advocates described as a cheaper and simpler screening tool.

In response to Roche's request, a number of women's groups -- including the American Medical Women's Association and Our Bodies Ourselves -- has sent a letter decrying the potential shift to FDA Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg, which they fear would lead to overtreatment and higher costs.

Guests:

Dr. Thomas Wright, M.D., Professor Emeritus of Pathology and Cell Biology at the New York Presbyterian Hospital at the Columbia University Medical Center. His current research looks at the safety and efficacy of cervical cancer screening. He is a paid consultant with Roche, which makes the test.

Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D., President of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund; Epidemiologist trained at Yale University

Former Bell city manager Robert Rizzo, listens to questions from the media, as he leaves the Edward R. Roybal Federal building and United States courthouse Monday, April 14, 2014.; Credit: Nick Ut/AP

The man authorities say masterminded a scheme that fleeced the small Los Angeles suburb of Bell out of millions of dollars has been sentenced to 33 months in prison for income tax evasion, the AP reports.

City News Service says former Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo was sentenced Monday by a federal judge. The 60-year-old Rizzo pleaded guilty in January.

On Wednesday Rizzo faces sentencing in state court on 69 counts of fraud, misappropriation of public funds and other charges for his role in the Bell scandal. He pleaded no contest in that case in October.

When he was fired by Bell in 2010 Rizzo had an annual salary and benefits package of $1.5 million. Authorities say he dodged nearly $300,000 in taxes by creating a corporation that claimed phony businesses losses.

Guests: 

Nestor Valencia, Mayor of Bell; Valencia has known Robert Rizzo for many years

Ali Saleh, Bell City Council member, founding member of the community group BASTA (Bell Association to Stop the Abuse)

Amir Aczel's new book “Why Science Does Not Disprove God” (William Morrow, 2014). Can a belief in science and God coexist?

Thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, the late Christopher Hitchens, and Lawrence Krauss, have vehemently argued that breakthroughs in modern science have irrefutably proven that God does not exist. Now, respected science journalist Amir Aczel has come up with a rebuttal to this narrative of thinking, raising doubts about science’s ability to disprove the existence of God.

Based on interviews with eleven Nobel Prize winners, prominent physicists, theologians and spiritual leaders, Why Science Does Not Disprove God provides a fascinating history of science and draws out the religious implications of our expanding understanding of the universe. Can a belief in science and God coexist?

Guest:  

Amir Aczel, author of numerous books, including “Why Science Does Not Disprove God” (William Morrow, 2014) and “Fermat’s Last Theorem” (Basic Books, 2007). He is currently a research fellow in the history of science at Boston University, and his writing regularly appears in Scientific American, Discover, and other publications

A man surfs the internet in Beijing on June 15, 2009. ; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

A new report is calling for a more systematic and comprehensive monitoring of internet security and finds the current approach used by world governments and companies too piecemeal and ineffective.

The report released this week by the Atlantic Council and Zurich Insurance Group, says the internet has become an entity too interconnected. A single vulnerability has the potential to bring the entire system down to its knees.

"There are a number of reasons to believe the internet of tomorrow will almost certainly be  less resilient, available, and robust than today. It will also be more likely to initiate and cascade global shocks," Jason Healey, Director of the Atlantic Council’s Cyber Statecraft Initiative, writes in the report.

Healey says our current “one risk at a time” approach to safeguarding the web has proven to be outdated and ineffectual, given how much the internet has evolved. The report argues that we must switch from a reactive to a preventive mindset so that issues could be detected and fixed before they become too destructive to contain.

A rethinking of how to better bolster web security has taken on increasing urgency in the wake of the recent discovery of the heartbleed bug, which has threatened to expose sensitive information of users because of a faulty encryption tool used by hundreds of thousands of web sites.

Guest:

Jason Healey, Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council and co-author of the report

(L-R) United Way President & CEO Elise Buik, recording artist Jay Z, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Council President Herb Wesson and Budsweiser Vice President Brian Perkins speak onstage at Budweiser Made In America Press Conference at Los Angeles City Hall on April 16, 2014 in Los Angeles, California.; Credit: Michael Buckner/Getty Images for Budweiser

Jay-Z’s “Made in America” music festival is officially coming to Downtown Los Angeles’ Grand Park. Mayor Eric Garcetti and Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter announced Wednesday that the Budweiser-sponsored festival will be held Labor Day weekend.

The two-day event is expected to draw as many as 50,000 people and will be the first paid-entrance event at the so-called “people’s park.”  The lineup has not yet been announced, but tickets went on sale Wednesday.

Mayor Eric Garcetti said the festival will be an economic boon to the city and he hopes it will draw attention to the two-year-old park as a civic gathering spot. Other city leaders have raised concerns about safety and logistics.

Councilman Jose Huizar, who represents Downtown, urged the city to hold off issuing the permit for the concert, citing concerns about street closures and alcohol sales at the concert.

Is a big festival in Grand Park good for Los Angeles? Could an event like this establish the park as a central iconic space in the heart of Los Angeles? Can Downtown handle 50,000 concertgoers? Do the logistical and safety concerns outweigh the potential benefits?

Guest: 

LA County Supervisor Gloria Molina

A man shops at a Walmart store in San Jose, Calif., in September 2013. ; Credit: Jeff Chiu/AP

As organic products continue to grow in popularity an increasing number of retailers are looking to get in on the action. Walmart, the country’s largest retailer and grocer, announced this week that it will become the exclusive retailer of Wild Oats organic products, offering them at nearly 25 percent cheaper than other competitors. Wild Oats will supply Walmart with 100 pantry staples from olive oil to canned veggies. Approximately 90 percent of the products will be USDA-certified organic.

Stores such as Target and Costco are following Walmart’s organic lead. Target is in the process of expanding its inventory of “natural, organic, and sustainable” products. Target will introduce more than 120 new products over the next several months under a new category “Made to Matter - Handpicked by Target.” Costco is now carrying items such as organic beef and some vegetables in an attempt to draw in younger consumers.

How will Walmart’s decision to expand its organic selection affect other grocers? Will organic farmers be impacted by an increase in demand? How will the this impact agriculture in California?

Guests: 

Joe Dobrow, author of “Natural Prophets: From Health Foods to Whole Foods--How the Pioneers of the Industry Changed the Way We Eat and Reshaped American Business” (Rodale Books, 2014). He served as head of marketing for Fresh Fields, Whole Foods Market, Balducci’s and Sprouts Farmers Market.

Philip Howard, an associate professor who studies food systems at Michigan State University in East Lansing.

Sunset in the Owens Valley. ; Credit: Dave Schumaker via Flickr Creative Commons

Owens Valley residents are putting up a fight over the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s plan to build two square miles of solar panels in the desert. The project, the Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch, would generate enough power to serve 75,000 homes annually, and would fulfill the city’s obligation to boost renewable energy supply by 2020.

Residents of Owens Valley have been ferociously critical of the field of solar panels, which would cost $680 million dollars, create fewer than 10 permanent jobs, and bring in no property tax revenue.

Critics have expressed distress at the destruction of the untouched landscape in the valley and the lack of long term economic plans. Inyo County has accepted DWP’s $4 million offer of compensation for potential damage to roads, and a $2 million loan to create short term housing for workers.

How will Inyo County proceed in its dealings with the DWP? Is the renewable energy from the solar panels worth changing the environment in Owens valley? What are the viable alternatives?

Guests: 

Michael Webster,  Assistant Director of Power System Planning and Projects, Department of Water and Power

Bryan Kostors, founder and lead editor of Deepest Valley, a group of community members and citizens that are passionate about the protection and well-being of Inyo County, California

US Secretary of State John Kerry and EU Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton speak during a press conference at the Intercontinental hotel on April 17, 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland. Leaders from EU, US, Ukraine and Russia are meeting today in Geneva to deescalate the crisis in Ukraine and to find a political solution. ; Credit: Harold Cunningham/Getty Images

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry announced that world leaders have come to an agreement on how to defuse the crisis in Ukraine.

Kerry met with his Russian counterpart, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, and top officials from Ukraine and the European Union in Geneva on Thursday to find a diplomatic solution. Kerry said the participants agreed on several points including requirements that all illegally armed groups must disarm, all illegally occupied buildings, streets and squares be vacated and Kiev will grant amnesty to protesters and occupiers with the exception of those found guilty of capital offenses.

In a move that Kerry called a final "concrete step", Kerry also said that the OSCE special monitoring mission will undertake a special role assisting Ukrainian authorities to immediately de-escalate the situation.

The agreement could hit the pause button on proposed economic sanctions that the US and the EU had planned to impose on Russia if no solution was agreed upon. But Kerry did not mince words when making it clear to Russia that any further escalation would not be tolerated. If Russia continued to provoke Ukraine, there would be no choice but to impose further costs, he said.

Is the agreement a slap on the wrist for Russia? Should the protesters and occupiers be granted amnesty?

Guest:

Will Pomeranz, Deputy Director of the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center

Actor Johnny Depp reacts to the photographers on arrival for the Los Angeles Premiere of the film 'Transcendence' on April 10, 2014 in Los Angeles, California. ; Credit: FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

Larry and KPCC film critics Tim Cogshell, Henry Sheehan and Charles Solomon review this week's releases including Transcendence, Heaven Is for Real, Fading Gigolo and more. TGI-Filmweek!

Transcendence

Heaven Is for Real

Fading Gigolo 

Guests:

Tim Cogshell, film critic for KPCC and Alt Film Guide

Henry Sheehan, film critic for KPCC and CriticsAGoGo.com

Charles Solomon, animation film critic for KPCC and Indiewire’s ‘Animation Scoop’