I will disregard the gross generalisations inherent in the question, as well as the inaccuracies, both in History and in terminology, but I do urge you to think more carefully about the context, rather than accepting as truth the popular views that you have heard. To answer the question, however, the ordinary Irish people would have lived in exactly the same way before and after the English came to Ireland. Even after the Act of Union, most Irish people's lives would have been little different, and would have been little different to those of ordinary people in Britain. The way of life of the people of Gaelic Ireland changed not at all when it became part of the English crown. Nicholls in "Gaelic and Gaelicised Ireland in the Middle Ages" (the only book I have to hand) describes the background, politics, legal system society the church and the economy in the period before and after the arrival of the English, and all that changes, he suggests, is that some of the overlords become English, and that these English overlords very quickly, within a generation or two, become Gaelicised. So, life wasn't better, it was the same. Even after the Tudor changes in the political control of Ireland, all that really changed was the identities of the overlords, life for the Irish remained pretty much the same. Just out of interest, why do you imagine that the Irish were better off before?

For one thing, what do you consider as being "under English control"? After the 12th century invasion (ordered by the Pope) where Irish kings either swore fealty to the Angevins as "Lords of Ireland", or were replaced with Norman lords? Henry VIII's (who was half Welsh) re-invasion of Ireland (as the Irish lords had stopped paying taxes) where he declared himself King of Ireland? The aftermath of the Nine Years War? The Act of Union, where Ireland lost its parliament?

There are two problems with the question: first, there isn't one point we can easily say at which "the English took control" and second, until the early modern period, it's not exactly the case that it can be defined as "English" control, so much as "the Plantagent (and descendents)'s control". I mean, when Henry II conquered forced the High King of Ireland to swear fealty to him, he couldn't really be described as an Englishman, just someone who was King of England (and duke of Normandy, count of Anjou, liege-lord of south wales, and claimed King of France). National identities were not really bound up with governments in the medieval period. Certainly, the conquest of Ireland wasn't considered to be a matter of the English conquering the Irish (though it later became so, both by English imperialists and Irish nationalists): first it was the Normans (with the Pope's blessing), then Henry VIII simply reasserting what he saw as his rights as feudal overlord of Ireland, then the Scottish James I putting down Catholic rebels and settling Protestant settlers in Ulster to keep the peace (who were a mix of English and Scottish: you should note that the biggest Protestant Church on the island of Ireland today isn't the Anglican-derived Church of Ireland of the Anglo-Irish aristocracy, it's the Scottish-style Presbyterian church.)

However. I won't dismiss this question entirely. Second_Mate is quite right that for the common people, the Tudor conquest (or reconquest), once the war was over, made little difference. The country was a poor, rural, trade-starved backwater (no offence to the Irish, but I can't think of a more neutral term to point out that it's right on the edge of Eurasia, with only Iceland being in a less convenient position in Europe) before the conquest, and it was a poor, rural, trade-starved backwater after the conquest. However, there were two significant problems with being under the control of the English crown (and later, the British crown) that would have been avoided if Ireland was independent. The first is simply a matter of periphery politics. The central government in London just didn't care that much about Ireland, and economic policy wasn't designed to enrich it. Thus issues like the Corn Laws, which exacerbated the Irish famine. This is also an issue that affected Wales and Scotland (though arguably not to such a great extent) and today England is the richest part of the Isles, per capita. The second, and perhaps more significant reason(its unlikely an independent Ireland would have been as wealthy as England anyway, for various reasons) was religion. After the reformation (with exceptions during the reigns of certain Kings and Queens) Catholics were severely discriminated against in a number of ways, both legally and culturally. Irish people suffered because of this. In addition, though related to it, in the various revolutions and civil wars that followed, Ireland nearly always supported the most Catholic side, and that was generally the side that lost, further weakening their position. For example, Cromwell crushed Irish armies and sacked Irish cities because of their support of Charles I. He also brutalised English Catholics, but those were just a small portion of Englishmen, but the vast majority of Irishmen. There's also the issue of racism, whereby the Irish were viewed by the English as sub-whites, but this is something that developed significantly after both Henry VIII's conquest and the plantation (though it was about the same time as Ireland lost its parliament). This made it difficult for the Irish to get good jobs, respect, etc. However, it's entirely likely this would have happened anyway if Ireland had not been under the control of the English.

If Ireland had been independent, it could have avoided these issues. But then, that's rather "what if" history, which is a matter for another subreddit.