In my opinion the thing you're giving up by shooting JPG is flexibility. The camera is not the same as a human eye/brain combination and so often I found I was getting JPG shots that were accurately reflecting what I remember seeing *only* as long as shooting conditions were pretty much ideal. The further away from an ideal scene I moved (e.g. high contrast) the more readily, and significantly, the shots begin to degrade. And while JPG's can to a degree be fixed in 'post, to me that was (is) a bit like scraping the black off a piece of burnt toast: it's an improvement but it's still not the same as if the toast had not been burnt in the first place. The weakness of a JPG really rears its ugly head when I want to do hard, HARD crop. Enlarge for printing to 8 x 10" and hellooooo artifacting.
Shooting RAW allows me to take a blown shot and correct it, if not to perfection certainly very, very close to it probably 99% of the time. I have to do something truly bone-headed to take a shot in RAW that I just can't salvage. Then there are considerations like working with a RAW file is non-destructive because I always have the original file to work with since the edits are saved in a sidecar file, and of course the resultant image file, but not the RAW file itself. If you're shooing JPG and happy with the results I guess it's hard to make a really strong case for shooting RAW; it does take more effort and more time to tweak shots taken in RAW but but then I also tend to only focus on, and keep, those shots that I think are really outstanding to begin with instead or hoarding hundreds of mediocre shots as I did when I shot JPG.
......