RAW only makes one too sloppy and means you don't need to care about exposure, white balance or even composition because all can be fixed in RAW. A good JPG is not far behind a RAW file in my opinion but a RAW file can be easier salvaged if one is sloppy (as I am when using the GRD II with the useless JPGs).
I agree here. If you are interested in IQ, which I think we all are, then you get the best out of a RAW buy exposing it as best you can from the start within the parameters of the camera.
I generally use the out of camera jpg IF its good enough, but this is quite subjective - each to their own judgement I believe, there is no right or wrong answer I think, if you have the time to process all RAWs, and want to, go for it I say, but I don't have time so often the jpg suffices.
Often my image is for postcard print only, and the jpg will suffice and I can spend time taking images. I do always record RAW as well though (space is cheap), because you never know when you might get a cracker of an image and wish to PP for best and biggest - this has happened often lately. My GRD II and LX3 have yielded some.