In the first place, and this is the rule "if it is not broken don't fix it." You have said you have been getting good results from JPEG files and in your case I would have stay with them.
On a regular basis RAW vs JPEG appears in this forum. I bet that if you do a search you will find a myriad of articles describing the virtues of one against the other. Many photographers shoot RAW and they do not even know what RAW is.
A RAW file is data straight out of the sensor or to explain it better, an image without processing. JPEG images are made with the firmware of the camera and the operator has parameters in the camera that can regulate the processing of the files such as contrast, saturation and sharpness. A JPEG image is an image that requires little editing while a RAW file needs good editing to obtain all it has to give.
Each manufacturer of cameras has its proprietary RAW file and many of them offer usually for free their own RAW editor. It is up to the photographer to manipulate the file to make it alive. We can say that the photographer is now doing the job of the camera's firware and it up to him to make that RAW file shine.
I use both files but I find myself using JPEG more often. It works for me and I am happy with the quality.

Maybe not. Jpeg is fast and easy until you have to adjust it. White balance, color balance, tonal adjustments, highlight and shadow recovery is often more limited compared to what you can do with a raw file. The hardest part to understand is how with raw you can make different exposure decisions in high contrast situations, which would ordinarily result in an awful jpeg, yet has all the information required to produce a really good conversion from raw. If you shoot average contrast subjects, or shoot in a studio where you control the light, you are likely to not see much of a difference. But raw files have considerably more "pushability" than jpegs, which start to fall apart when you make even modest adjustments. To see a difference you'd have to take an image that is tone and dynamic range (and color) challenging.

First image is an unedited jpeg of what the camera recorded. I biased the exposure to protect the highlights in the water. You can already see nasty stuff in the shadows, and I didn't do any editing yet.

Second image is an attempt to open up the shadows (most of the image, actually) in the jpeg, and you can see "mud" instead of detail in most of the darker areas, posterization, and just a crappy image.

The last is a jpeg of the raw file as I converted it, and made some minor adjustments - contrast, saturation, some removal, etc. I created a 16 bit psd file, then opened it in photoshop, then saved it as a jpeg for posting.

This is the kind of subjects I shoot, so I have absolutely no use for a workflow that starts with a jpeg. I shoot weddings, sports events, birds in flight and perched, night photography, landscape, cityscape, street, etc - and so far I have not ever thought that jpegs out of the camera could touch what I can do when I use a raw workflow.

I used Lightroom and Photoshop for these. But I also regularly use ON1 Raw, DXO Optics Pro, and have used Capture One in the past.

I just finished a shoot I did yesterday of shelter cats and dogs - giving back to the community. Even though I had some control over lighting, there was some variation. and I shot everything from black dogs and cats to white ones. Dialing in a custom camera profile for the speedlight shots for all the images I took with them was a piece of cake. Making the tonal adjustments, applying sharpening, etc also very fast. I went through 300 images, culled about 50, selected 120, and was done with all the processing in an hour. Raw editing is super fast, not complicated, and far easier to learn than trying to mess with jpegs, which I would have had to adjust individually.

I'm sorry Jim, what does your response even mean? Are you saying that some reasonable people believe my "obviously biased assumptions"? Then that would by definition, make them unreasonable by your reasoning. Bias? Hardly. Reality borne out of experience.
I can take the original raws I shot 8 years ago and rework them with today's post processing software and salvage detail and produce an killer image that wasn't possible when I took it. If I just took it as a jpeg, that door is closed to me. It would still be crap today as it was back then.
If you insist that jpeg's are the only way to go, I don't agree but just go ahead and knock yourself out. Different strokes and all. But I hardly think it is an issue to thank a Deity over. The stench of group-think here is getting a little stifling.