first of all, let's get rid of th ebiggest myth out there. RAW data is NOT data right off the sensor.
If it were, it would be a series of varrying intensity red, green and blue dots.
see the attached link for the description of the bayer filter used on most digital cameras
Bayer filter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aside from that, what RAW really consists of is the following.
An interpolation off the Bayer filter array to provide the user with red, green, blue and black channels at a conversion of either 12 or 14 bits per channel.
When you save in JPEG, this is reduced (by interpolation) to 8 bits per channel. One of the biggest impacts, therefore when converting to JPEG is that the steps between individual different colors or even shades within one color are larger. In many cases, this is not a problem, BUT when trying to dig detail specifically out of the shadows, this can be a problem, because the JPEG image also compresses the shadows more than a RAW image, so these "steps" between shades are larger.
The other significant difference is that JPEG has additional processing based upon camera settings, specifically contrast, color balance (white balance), noise reduction and sharpening.
Extreme compression in Jpegs, as snostorm suggests also starts to compress data by merging common elements of the image within larger blocks. this is where the real loss of image quality hits, but if you pick maximum resolution this is not significant.
If you are comfortable with your skills and knowledge of the camera settings, and / or you never take extreme shots which you know will require significant processing, JPEG can easily suit your needs.
The biggest arguments presented for RAW aside from greater color depth, is the ability to correct errors in post processing. To me the best credible argument, presented on the forum to date is that as time progresses, there may be development of better noise reduction and sharpening algorythims and as a result there is "potential" for better processing in the future. I say potential, because I am not sure it has happened yet.
For me, I shoot JPEGS almost exclusively, and have the same interests as snostorm, and have no complaints. I pay attention to white balance when shooting, amd modify WB to suit the lighting, I do the same with contrast, and I also pay close attention to exposure. I put an effort to getting it right at the time of capture, as opposed to fixing errors in simple things later.
It is everyone's personal preference, nothing more.
Don't let people tell you that shooting JPEGs makes later adjustments impossible, that is pure BS. Processing JPEGs is no different than processing RAW, you just don't have the same range of adjustments. If your exposure is close, i.e. within 1 stop it probably does not matter, but if you are out by 2-3 stops, then RAW can help some, but regardless it will not be a great image, it will still look like it was recovered from the scrap heap, just a little less so.