I guess we're getting close to having the usual pixel peeping started. I personally think the debate on workflow, data preservation ( as far as strategies to store and sort your photos for the next 50 years, not the "a few pixels on a 12 Million Pixels image are rendered to a slightly diferent color than they should originally - because I never saw a white pixel, in a white wall, while working on a JPEG image turn black ) is a great debate. Talking if, in a professional work, pixels go astray while you process your photos either as JPEG, TIFF and RAW, so, everyone should always....
The "Everyone should always" talks are really boring and pointless when talking on pro photography. Because, you should be moved more about market pressures, better techniques, best practices and your own work needs, rather than "the latest hype".
Everyone debates about the degradation of JPEG files when working on them. Nobody mentions the problems you have when you send your RAW file to a newspaper, and they print if off color, so that a green lettuce leaf turns yellow, because the editor did think he felt that was better. Or when for lack of resolution, the newspaper printer turned your 16 million beautiful 16-bit TIFF into a 3000 color image, if not Black and White with 56 shades of gray. Or you sent your photos to be printed as a book for a marriage album to a local press, and you ask "What's the color profile you're gonna use?", and the answer over the phone is "Huh?".
Anyone who makes a living out of this profession, will know why they shoot RAW or JPEG. I personally think you should shoot RAW anytime you'll have the time and moment to sit back and process your photos with a cup of coffee on your hand. Worst case scenario, if I have to hand in JPEGs 15 minutes after the shoot was done, I shoot JPEG + RAW. For the sake of preserving the "digital negative", both for ownership and longevity issues, for a (slightly) higher flexibility while post-processing the photos. And for the sake of my paranoid behavior on having the image on it's "purest" form stored. But on the other hand, magazines ask me usually for JPEGs. What am I gonna do? Walk into their offices with a sledge hammer?
We debate a lot here, about bad practices as photographers, but sometimes, sitting on a desk, using our work, and having as much influence on the quality of our work, or even more, is the editor, who sometimes, doesn't need such higher practices. Usually, he'll care more if you managed to do a great edit on your photos, handling him just what's good to use ( instead of dumping 4000 JPEGs on his lap, for him to stop whatever he's doing and do your work ), than if a few pixels are astray on the photos you took, because you decided to use JPEG.
Unless of course, the client asks for the RAW files. That happens. And when that happens, you're not gonna use JPEG at all.