Guys with the RAW T-shirts often compare edited Raw to unedited jpg. Fact is, most of the time, almost all the time, you and your camera take jpgs quite well, and you can 99% of the time edit the jpg to as good or superior to what you get with RAW.

Very little about RAW helps with the most common photography problems, which with todays camera's you have to try to screw up enough that raw is required. RAW is the LAST thing that makes for a good picture. A skilled editor can take a B&W jpg photo and colorize to very high standards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5Y8YcKnRm0

The most common problems with photography are in composition (pole sticking out of Aunt Janes head, crooked horizon, face shadows, ugly sky, etc. These are all easily fixed in a jpg editor. Even minor (actually pretty major) exposure and color issues can be fixed with a jpg editor.

If you are so anal retentive you need RAW to perfect your photo's then by all means, go for it. I have to laugh when old folks here thought their walls were yellow when in fact they were white. EVERYONES eyes are different, screens are different, printers different view points different and since the difference from edited RAW to edited JPG is close to imperceptible to most everyone, it is amusing that some insist RAW is the ONLY way to go and editing is only useful if done on a RAW image.

If you are a person who pays such attention to detail that it becomes an obsession then RAW would be a good choice. Good luck and occasionally you might end up with a better outcome than if you just shot JPG to begin with. And, unless you have superb artistic skills, you will more often end up with less than the edited jpg would have provided to you.