if you can get it right in camera then you don't need raw
Absolutely correct. And if you can't always get it right in camera you need RAW. My hit rate is not 100%, so....
My hit rate isn't 100% and I still shoot JPEG. As long as the WB is very close and the exposure is pretty close then there isn't ever a problem for me.
Thats why we have both. If it works for you, then you will be happy, at least until a couple newer technology processors come out and your images start to look poorer.
For archival material, images you want to keep forever, consider RAW. The reason I suggest this is that RAW converters continually improve, and you can always reprocess a raw image and get better results with a newer raw converter. JPEG results are locked in. I have some images taken at ISO 3200 when I first got my 5D MK II in 2007 and LR2, and they were noisey. Reprocessing them with LR 3 and now 4 makes them sharper, and less noisey. My older JPEGS stay the same, and tend to look awful compared to the reprocessed raws.
I do use jpegs for images with a short life span, ones I will throw away, but for family photos, ones I want to be available forever, I shoot raw and process a jpeg for current use knowing it can always be reprocessed when a better raw processor arrives.