To answer, I'll need to digress slightly on the "Empire" aspect. The short version is that while the British Empire itself didn't have all that much of an impact, the developments spurred on by the desire to keep that empire might affect your daily life quite a bit: the Empire might have been one of the factors in the rise of the British market economy, which definitely would benefit the laborer.

In 1800, the overseas Empire proper was still fairly nascent; they had just lost most of the North American colonies, after all. Commercial imports of tea from the East Indies Company and tobacco from the West Indies are very affordable even to lower classes, but they were available in quantity to other European countries that didn't own India, so calling that a benefit of "empire" might be stretching things a little. Imports from overseas colonies were further hindered by the fact that this was the height of the French Revolutionary Wars.

However...the imperial apparatus, the Royal Navy et al., probably did have at least some impact on everyday economic life even out in the countryside, because its demand for a wide variety of goods stimulated trade to a large extent. This trade benefited the Navy by letting it buy goods at a lower price, but it also lowered costs for everyone with access to those markets. There's a passage from NAM Rodger's history of the Royal Navy 1649-1815, The Command of the Ocean, that discusses the economic advantages enjoyed by Britain; Rodger's analysis lines up very well with what I've read from other economic historians:

> "Beyond naval operations, the work of the Victualling Board [the organization responsible for procuring food for the RN] has a wider significance for the agricultural and economic history of Britain. The Board was the largest single purchaser on the London markets for agricultural products, and its policy of managing the markets so as to encourage the growth of large firms, while at the same time promoting competition, was at least influential, and possibly critical, in the growth of a sophisticated and integrated national and eventually international agricultural market. The British economy was unique in that there were few peasants, in the sense of subsistence farmers. Even small producers in remote parts were accustomed to serving a national market, exporting their goods (usually by coastal shipping) to London, being paid by bills which they could discount locally, investing their savings in the financial markets. Long before the Industrial Revolution began, a commercial and agricultural revolution had taken place which made the British economy the most sophisticated in the world, and which linked internal commerce to international trade flows. The growth of a national agricultural market was fundamental to this." (Rodgers 307, where he argues that the massive procurement efforts of the Royal Navy helped to stimulate this market--an arguable point, but the existence of an extensive market economy, as opposed to widespread subsistence, is the consensus of economic historians.)

And:

> "In Britain two fundamental transformations were in progress, in naval administration and in the economy at large. Naval establishments represented in many respects so many islands of the nineteenth century in the eighteenth-century countryside. These enormous and complex enterprises faced challenges of management and control which were as yet unknown to private business, or to any other part of government. It seems that they transferred relatively few skills to the national economy, which still had little need of them, but their very large-scale purchases of goods and services of high quality at keen prices provided a powerful engine driving the growth of the national agricultural market... Around them the British economy was still agricultural and commercial rather than industrial, but increasingly sophisticated and integrated. The geography of the British Isles gave most districts access to coastal shipping, and only the efficiencies of water transport (which contemporaries reckoned to cost at most about one-twentieth of road transport) made possible a national market, integrated directly into international markets. In the early eighteenth century the little Dorset port of Lyme Regis, for example, was importing sugar from the West Indies and tobacco from Virginia and in return exporting drapery, canvas, gloves, saddlery, hats, gowns, kerseys, soap, earthenware, nails, ironware, shoes and beer bottles, among other things, the products of craftsmen and small businesses in the surrounding towns and villages of Dorset, Devon and Wiltshire. ...At the same time the rising productivity of agriculture, feeding into a national market which allowed producers to profit from every increase in output, fed a growing population with no increase in the number working on the land. All this contributed powerfully to the growth of a sophisticated economy with developed baking and insurance systems, which consistently generated the ample, indeed surplus investment capital essential to finance both war and economic growth." (Rodgers 310)

​

Rodgers was talking about the mid-1700s, and by 1800 the effects are very pronounced, such that a tiny town out in the middle of nowhere has regular access to trade goods from across the Atlantic at competitive prices. I should note that economic historians are pretty divided about the causes of Britain's "divergence" from the rest of Europe, but that there was such a divergence is generally agreed upon. This in turn meant that the average Briton had access to more and cheaper market goods than their counterpart on the continent, and more ability to buy those goods. "The High Wage Economy of Pre-Industrial Britain", for instance, takes a look at living standards across Europe; Britain stands out as having fairly high amounts of relatively expensive meat and dairy consumption among its working classes. Was the rise of the British market caused by British government policies designed to maximize the efficiency of the RN? Highly doubtful. Was it influenced? Very possible. This is a somewhat looser definition of "Empire", where we're mainly talking about British naval capacity instead of the actual overseas territories, but I think it fits.