Only you can come to the final conclusion of what works for you - if you try to gather the opinions of the masses, you're going to end up feeling the pressure to be just like them - the masses will always tell you a certain brand is best, you should aspire to full frame, and you should never ever shoot in anything but RAW. They'll tell you which RAW editor is best, and what to take photos of, if you want them to!
My opinion is: have your own opinion, and do what gets you the results, what makes you happy, and what makes photography everything you need it to be. If that can be done by shooting JPG, and using a decent entry-level body, and no post-processing, then why not? In my opinion, the reason to change anything you're doing, the ONLY reason that matters, is because you're not happy with the results you're getting the way you do it now. A great reason to move to RAW shooting is because it offers much wider latitude to adjust and process your photo after you shoot, and offers a higher degree of recovery to fix errors if you make them...so if you're finding your results are not pleasing you, not meeting your needs, or just need more work to look good, then RAW is a good option to learn how to use. But if you find yourself happy with what you're getting out of your camera now, if you find your photos meet all you need them to, and you find yourself pretty good at nailing everything in the camera to where you don't feel you need much post-processing alterations, then keep shooting JPG.
Let me put it another way: I know some folks who shoot in JPG and can get vastly superior results and much better photos than some folks I know who shoot in RAW. Part of that is the skill of the photographer, part of it is knowing how to set up the JPG output of the camera and choose the right settings while shooting to nail the look you are going for, and part of it may have to do with the RAW skills of the other shooters and their skill level when shooting. But the fact remains: those JPG guys get what they need from JPG, the results are pleasing, and meet all their needs. One of them is a pro shooter...the others amateurs. Do you REALLY want to shoot RAW, or does peer pressure from all you hear and see on the boards telling you that you're inferior or will never be a pro if you don't shoot RAW cause you to think you need to do it? Wanting to shoot RAW to learn more about post-processing, take more control over the final output of your photo after you shoot it, or the need to fix or recover your photos for optimal results are all fine reasons to shoot RAW. Caving in to peer pressure when you were already happy is not a good reason to shoot RAW.
I can offer you my own personal choice, not to pressure you with what to do, but just offer perspective. I'm a semi-pro shooter, have been in SLR photography since 1977 and digital photography since 1997. I get paid for some of my work and do hired shoots, and also shoot purely for pleasure. I shoot in JPG roughly 95% of the time overall, with RAW mostly being used when I shoot hired jobs. Even then, I tend to shoot RAW+JPG, so I can use the JPGs most of the time when I nail the shot, but have the RAW there to back me up in case I flub anything, since I am no longer the only one relying on the photo - I have a client I need to please, so the RAW is insurance. When I shoot any personal photography, I shoot JPG - I enjoy photography much more that way, because I like being out in the world, taking the photos, and working as hard as I can to get everything right when I shoot - the interface between man and machine, turning dials and getting settings right, adjusting the parameters of the camera's JPG engine just-so, that's the part I enjoy. Sitting in front of a computer is something that feels more like a task or job - I don't enjoy that as much as I feel I just need to. So I try to limit the amount of time I spend there. JPG, shot correctly, avoids the need to do any post processing. Get the exposure right, tune the JPGs for just the right color output, contrast curve, saturation, and sharpness, use dynamic range optimization software in camera to control highlights and shadows, focus correctly, and compose correctly, and the shot can come out of the camera ready to hang on a wall or sell to a client, or publish in a National magazine. And of course, you can still post-process a JPG - lots of things can be fine-tuned, just not with the extreme flexibility of RAW. You need to be much closer to right than wrong with the JPG - with the RAW, you can be wildly off and still get a decent shot out of it. Some things RAW can do that JPG cannot, such as setting white balance...while white balance can be 'adjusted' with the JPG, some colors can be irreparably thrown off even after adjustment - so if you're not into setting the correct white balance when you shoot, that could be a big advantage of RAW, because you can correctly tune it later. I like setting it when I shoot, so this isn't an issue for me.
Neither method is wrong or right, so don't let people sway you on that argument. Just decide what it is you want from photography, what parts of the process you enjoy the most, decide whether you are happy with the output you're getting now, whether you could improve your JPG results to the point where you can be happy, or whether RAW is the better choice for maximum flexibility, enjoyment, or optimal final results. Then choose for yourself, and care not what others opine.
Sony DSLR-A580 / Sony 18-250mm / Minolta 50mm F1.7 / Sigma 30mm F1.4 / Tamron 10-24mm / Tamron 150-600mm / Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro / Minolta 300mm F4 APO
Sony A6000 / 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 / 55-210mm F4-6.3 / 10-18mm F4 / 35mm F1.8 / 16mm F2.8 / via manual adapter, lots of Pentax K mount, Konica K/AR mount, and Leica M mount manual lenses