The RAW vs JPEG debate

I don't shoot RAW format because I do not yet know what I am missing. I do, however, regularly pp most if not all of my keepers in Photoshop. (jpegs)! This probably seems crazy to a regular RAW shooter, but this is what I grew up doing... through college, etc. They had a photography class ( film) and then I had all my digital classes where I learned all the Adobe and Web stuff.

So what am I missing? How relevant is Photoshop when considering RAW processing. Are these programs like Lightroom and whatever else, are they more capable than Photoshop when it comes to RAW processing or are they cheaper, more specific in their function? I feel I have pretty good command of Photoshop, but from what I hear around here, there is missing data in jpegs since it is a lossy format. I will output as jpeg anyways unless it's going to print, which 99% of my stuff never does.

So, I'd like an opinion from a professional prospective, meaning someone who has command over RAW processing and understands what they are doing and not just clicking a series of software actions and playing with sliders,, what am I missing? I know there's something about pulling detail out of blown highlights and shadows, but really, where is the advantage in studio,portrait, or other shooting situations when you can "set up the shot"? The way some of these RAW shooters talk.. it's like they are diving behind barrels and taking pictures of Taliban Warriors and can't bother with setting up the camera in the field.

I'm missing something certainly, but what is it exactly? I can do without extra large files on my PC, and I've never backed up my cameras buffer with jpeg.

- Kenneth