We all know what money can’t buy us: love and, above a certain basic level, happiness. And this month we discovered that it can’t always buy us good health, either. Perhaps David Cameron is on to something when he says that “it’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB — General Well-Being”.

It’s all very well for him, with his rich wife, was the reflex response of many who read his speech this week. They doubt that he has ever had to worry about paying his council tax bill. And it’s true that money worries are not confined to those at the bottom of the income scale. There are plenty of relatively high-earning professionals who scrimp desperately to pay school fees or to afford a family house in London.

But even they probably underestimate the effect on their health and happiness of factors other than money, such as good relationships and time off work. A fascinating study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this month found that white, middle-aged Americans, even though they spend more than twice as much on healthcare as their English counterparts, have far higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, strokes, lung disease and cancer than we do.

It’s not just that they are fatter than we are (though they are), as the results hold even when the sample is adjusted for obesity. We drink more than they do but are still healthier. It’s not that we all have free treatment on the NHS: the study found that even the wealthiest Americans, all of whom have health insurance, are as unhealthy as the poorest English. And it is not that America’s large proportion of ethnic minorities skews the result, as the research focused only on non-Hispanic whites.

“It was a bit of a big shock,” confessed Dr Michael Marmot, one of the study’s authors. “Everybody should be discussing it: why isn’t the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?” One of the Americans who worked with him on the research said that, at first, no one wanted to believe the data. But the results are clear. The only question is, why?

Americans have been beating their breasts in print since the study was published, and one theory is that it is partly due to the way they live and work. As Paul Krugman wrote in The New York Times: “Americans work too hard and experience too much stress. Maybe overwork, together with the stress of living in an economy with a minimal social safety net, damages our health.”

Compared with other Europeans, we British see ourselves as working long hours and suffering job insecurity. But compared with the lives of Americans, ours are a doddle. Yes, the average Italian gets 42 days of paid holiday a year to our 28. But Americans take only 14 of the 16 days to which they are entitled. No wonder they are frazzled and their blood pressure shoots up.

No wonder, also, that they are no happier than we are, despite their greater wealth. All studies of happiness find that, above an income level that meets our basic needs, extra money does not make us happier. What does are strong relationships and relinquishing the desire to keep up with our neighbours.

Buying the latest designer goods won’t make us happy, particularly when we see our credit card statement at the end of the month. But being allowed to work more flexibly so that we spend more time with our families can make a big difference. You don’t necessarily have to sacrifice income to do so. Many parents now leave the office early to see their children after school but catch up on their work later in the evening after their offspring have gone to bed.

Simply being more in control of your working hours can make a big difference to happiness, or “general wellbeing”, as Cameron puts it. In his speech he cited the experience of BT: “At BT, flexible working policies reduced absenteeism to 3.1 per cent, compared with a national average of 8.5 per cent. And 99 per cent of women return after maternity leave, compared with a national average of 47 per cent.”

Lots of people can’t afford to go part-time to see more of their family and friends. But they can, if their employers let them, arrange their working hours in different ways. That is likely to make them — and the people around them — happier and healthier.

And the knock-on effects can be huge. As Cameron asks: “How can we hope to address issues like education, crime, antisocial behaviour, poverty and health when so much evidence points to the crucial role of relationships — especially relationships between parents and their children — in shaping these things?”

How indeed?

Moral panic? I'll dring to that

The Tories said yesterday that the World Cup would be the “real test” for the Government’s controversial 24-hour drinking laws. Could that be because the predicted mayhem has yet to materialise?

Before the Licensing Act was passed, newspapers and politicians terrified us with visions of Hogarthian excess. City centres would become no-go areas of violence and inebriation. Rapes, road deaths and assaults would become commonplace. Casualty departments would be overwhelmed.

Has this happened? It is too early for statistics, but anecdotal evidence suggests not. West Yorkshire Police say that they have “definitely not seen a massive increase in incidents”, while Merseyside Police believe that alcohol-related crime may have fallen. Staggered closing times mean that drunks don’t all pitch out on to the street together at 11pm.

Perhaps we should file this scaremongering alongside John Major’s forecasts that the minimum wage would cost two million jobs and that Scottish devolution would break up the United Kingdom. They love making our flesh creep, these politicians, don’t they?

Times Recommends

• In the real world, the public sector must pay
• Playing politics in a land of double Dutch
• Be like the plinth people: not set in stone