And let us not be judgmental here. Notwithstanding the apparent moral of the ant vs. grasshopper tale, it would be far too easy to assume only the savers, investors, or workaholics (basically, the ants) have the moral or practical high ground. But life is not so simple. There is arguably much to be said for the generous giver, for example. Among other things, they may be our nation's cadre of volunteers, the sponsors of our charitable foundations, the supporters of friends and family in times of need, those who will put themselves in the background while doing everything to assure children and others get good starts (or have second chances), the ones who take a bowl of homemade soup or a fresh pie to people who are ill, etc.
Where would our economy or we ourselves be without the spenders among us!? And just counting my own relatives, particularly if I look out two or three generations, I can point to instances of folks who would seem to have had spender profiles who nonetheless wound up being better providers or benefactors than their more miserly, methodical friends and kin.
Those who are typically the "slackers" may have leisure in which to come up with innovations, creative expressions, or other contributions that enhance both their own lives and those of others.
So, it is not at all a matter of one person being good and another bad, or even of one approach being correct and another incorrect, but simply of divergent styles. If we happen to have as different approaches as those of the storied ant and grasshopper, though, it would not take great insight to see that relationship troubles could be brewing.
The BBC has a concise web page that offers several questions to help partners assess if their money styles are compatible. It might be fun to check it out.