There was a time when folks debated whether to shoot raw vs. setting their cameras to do the conversions internally and just deliver JPEGs. This was not that many years ago!
Now it's just so easy to bring up shadow detail, tame nearly blown highlights, remove color fringing, get better color, and keep the results looking pleasing and natural...
What strikes me is how far Camera Raw (also Lightroom) has come in such a short time, so that what was a reasonable debate at one time is now a no-brainer: Anyone with a current version of Photoshop and a camera made in the last decade would be silly not to shoot raw.
Time was the JPEG images often looked more natural than "pushed" images where we tried to get more out of the shadows. Before the most recent advances, highlight recovery was pretty iffy.
Now it's almost always just the opposite - adeptly processed raw images using the modern facilities for shadow and highlight recovery often bring back data we didn't know we had, and at the same time actually end up looking more natural than their in-camera JPEG counterparts, even when extreme adjustments are used!
Some examples of in-camera JPEG images vs. being quickly processed through Camera Raw and other modern Photoshop facilities, such as HDR Toning...
I suppose we can expect that people are at all levels of knowledge. Life is a learning experience for us all.
The leaps just made in the past few months eclipse all past capabilities and now make it easier than ever for virtually all folks to get more from their raw files (e.g., just drag the Shadows and Highlights sliders to extreme settings). Given what can be done with one exposure, it's not hard to imagine that there might be some who no longer crave taking it even further with multiple exposure HDR.
I honestly haven't needed another camera in years because of all these converter improvements.