Something not mentioned so far is that many (even good) cameras have somewhat wonky WB, not to mention sharpening programs and noise reduction programs that overdo it. If you shoot .jpg, you're buying that white balance and that level of sharpening and noise reduction. The Leica M8 forum, for example, has frequent discussions of weird behavior of the M8's WB -- people will put a camera on a tripod using auto WB, shoot four successive shots, and get four different WB readings when the light didn't change at all. Picking white balance is sort of an art, on the part of both the camera and the photographer, but ultimately, you have to rely on your eye, not the camera, to get it precisely right. If it's baked in the cake -- well, it's somebody else's cake, and that guy never stood looking at the scene you shot.
Another thing not mentioned is that whatever you shoot, you're almost certainly going to run it through some kind of processing program, if only to choose which photos to print. I know, there are cameras that will download directly to printers, but few here routinely do that. If you're going to run even your .jpgs through some editing program, why not shoot RAW? You could do a couple easy batch edits, tweak some white balances, rescue a few shots that would be terrible in .jpg...and spend fifteen minutes doing that instead of three minutes with .jpgs. If your photos aren't worth the extra few minutes, then maybe .jpg is okay.