> How is giving money to the "right" people supposed to do that?
According to various studies there is a limit to how much money per year changes your base happiness. The ones I have read say $80,000 but inflation probably makes that a dated number. Everybody meaningfully burning more than that is either a member of the upper class buying superyachts or stuck in a red queen race like a speculative real estate market or collectibles. The ones who make more than the happiness threshold who don't have some other sink for it (the majority) prudently lock it into index funds where it's made available to the people who didn't want to lose control in the first place. That is the "how".
> How is giving money to these people in particular different than giving money to, say, nurses?
Canonically, there are three competing types of people getting paid out with some overlap:
1. Small business professionals. The standard here is your family doctor or dentist. Restaraunt owners also qualify. These groups deal with fairly intense regulation / "insurance" policies to limit how successful they are.
2. High-end white collar workers. Prior to the tech bubble conscripting software engineers, the usual suspect was lawyers. Lawyers have a wide gulf in compensation between "Ivy League Grads at BigLaw" and everyone else. That trend mirrors the current trend of BigTech vs. everyone else as described in the "Crack Theory". Look up "bi-modal salary" for more details.
3. Strikers. The halls of power are more than willing to max out the happiness threshold of anyone from auto workers in the 50s to airline points in the 90s who can make a credible threat that the spice will not flow. Power is willing to do this because they have spare money to print and the ability to strip the compensation long term by shifting jobs around. Based on current events in NJ, you may or may not get to watch this pay out in real time with your nurses.