I think keeping more information is a Good Thing.
The only information on my slides when they came back from processing was the processing date. Not the date I took the shot. Sometimes I wrote on the slide frame but that was relatively rare. One of the biggest lies we tell ourselves is 'I'll remember that'.

And LR does (roughly) 90% of my image adjustments. PS does (roughly) 10%, mostly the more complex adjustments.
The primary reason I chose LR to begin with was the DAM. LR is the way I find my images. I do directory trees also because when I'm gone, that's the way my family will find the family photos (or whatever).

I once took a workshop/seminar with a well know, in the industry, industrial photograher. He said, "The image appears in the photographer's mind's eye, long before it appears on the film"! I loved that statement and asked him if I could use it in my advertising literature- even print it on my business card. He gave me permission. How cool was that? Well- in the end, I chickened out and decided it was too philosophical. My industrial clients manufacture big ugly earth-moving equipment, giant cranes, and blasting supplies! Waxing poetic might not go over well on a job site where skilled folks cuss a lot. I still believe in the mind's eye thing. If you can pull off what you previsualize, you are on the right track! How you get there does not matter.

If you consider pp to be any changes made to an image after the sensor collects that image then everybody uses pp. JPEGs are processed in camera based on settings put in by the manufacturer, many of which you can change, BTW. RAW images require processing in your computer. Either way, there is processing involved.
If you shoot JPEG there are a number of camera parameters you can change to get a better image "SOOC". If you shoot RAW it just takes time and practice to get the best out of the image.

I'm going to assume you mean you have difficulty getting that quality SOOC without additional processing.

So even most of the folks who responded that they shoot JPEG acknowledged that they PP their images.

My wife and I go to the park every late afternoon for a walk. Yesterday I took two photos while we were there. I have a compact camera I carry with me everywhere (Canon G7). I think the two photos I took are instructive given your question.

First image below is the camera JPEG (SOOC with crop) of the photo I took while we sat on the bench after our walk. The camera JPEG is both overexposed and underexposed. The sky is nuked out with the highlights blown and the shadowed section in the foreground is too dark. The get it right in camera solution? Is not going to happen. This is a case of excessive contrast and it's common enough that the camera manufacturers have added functions in our cameras to address it. I'm using one of them here from Canon that they call Auto Lighting Optimizer -- I have it set to the highest value. The JPEG would be worse without it but it isn't enough. I could throw in another function that Canon calls HTP (highlight tone priority) but that would require that I reduce exposure -- the opposite of what's truly needed. More sophisticated cameras will offer more like an HDR option but none of those functions will produce the photo I took with trivial effort. The sky in the photo is daylight WB while the foreground is open shade WB. In processing the raw file I was able to apply both selectively to the respective areas -- not going to happen shooting a SOOC JPEG.

The camera JPEG is a wastebasket case given the blown highlights in the sky. To capture a JPEG that I could use and PP I would have to reduce exposure and substantially underexpose the darker sections of the image that are already underexposed. Best option shooting JPEG would be a camera with an HDR function and then try and repair the result. Still it would not be possible to do what I did in my version of the photo using the raw file. Second best option is a JPEG with less exposure. Either way PP will be required.

That's a really big difference between raw and JPEG here. The JPEG highlights are nuked but those highlights are not nuked in the raw file. Shooting raw I can expose more and that's big advantage. So the second photo below is processed from that raw file that I deliberately captured. Shooting raw in a lighting situation like this means I did a lot less work overall assuming the photo I wanted is the one I got. I like blue and orange together.

Walking back to the car we saw this fungus growing out of a hole in a tree. The sun had set and it was twilight. To take a photo I had to raise the ISO to 3200 on my little 1" sensor compact -- that's pushing it. The first photo below is the camera JPEG (SOOC with crop). This photo is a good example of why the myth "get it right in camera" is a myth. It is a rare photo that, delivered directly by the camera SOOC, won't benefit from some degree of local adjustment. It does happen and that interment reinforcement keeps the myth alive.

So the camera JPEG is pretty poor. To start it's off color. It's blue. That's because I had the camera set to auto WB. That's what auto WB does -- it get's the color wrong. But I have to set a WB so if not auto then a preset that would also have been wrong or a custom WB. Setting a custom WB is a pain so what to do. Try and fix the JPEG? Good luck with that.

The subject of the photo is the fungus. The hole in the tree functions as a frame. The frame is too light. There are no picture controls in the camera that will deal with that. It's a simple thing but what a difference it makes. I darkened the tree around the fungus bottom and right side while processing the photo. It is a rare photo that won't benefit from some local adjustment applied in post process.

As for the color, I keep my camera in a little pouch case and slipped in there is a piece of white Styrofoam. I placed it in the scene for the last shot and had a perfect WB target for processing the raw file. The JPEG is a bit noisy given the 3200 ISO (amazing it's as good as it is). This is a classic camera problem. Noise filtering is processor intensive and processing power in the camera is at a premium. Your camera has to process it's JPEGs assuming that you're holding the shutter release down and expect multiple JPEGs per second. The needed processing power + time simply isn't available for the camera to do any kind of noise filtering much above the level of "really sucks." I processed the raw file using state-of-the-art noise filtering from DXO that's only available with raw files. It makes a difference.

So two casual snapshots during a walk in the park -- post processing required if you really want a good result.