There are two cameras in my experience that produce eminently usable jpegs straight out of the camera. The Leica Digilux 2/LC-1 and the X10. My X-E1 and GR both have the useful facility to develop raw in camera; I shoot them both as raw+jpeg in order to either save the odd shot where I have really screwed up exposure, or to apply a filter in post processing. I also shoot the X-E1 in mono most of the time because a) I work in mono most of the time(!) and b) it makes it easier to manual focus with the focus peaking.
Luke, I truly feel your pain on the processing of raw. Consider this. When using film you had the choice of print (low control, everything done for you), slide (less links in the image chain, get it right in camera or else) and the sub-sets of self-processing (time consuming and fiddly, high control) and processing by someone else (quicker but low control).
Thus, taking your roll of film with a Christmas tree at either end to Boots was low control, low effort, low input and where the mass market was. Shooting slide and either processing it yourself or getting it done properly and professionally was high control (at the input stage and potentially at processing) but more expensive per frame and the domain of the experienced amateur or professional.
Today we have jpeg and raw. jpeg straddles both the old print and slide domains - it can be quick and easy, cheap as chips, but it can also encourage the get-it-right-in-camera behaviours of the dedicated amateur and the time-poor pro. Raw has become the format of choice of those who want to squeeze the best possible results out of the captured file and who have the time and the inclination to do so. What we don't see today is a lot of professional raw processors offering their services - "upload your files to us and have fantastic prints in no time" sort of thing. that is because raw is a fiddler's dream - a veritable smorgasbord of choice for the indecisive - and that is best done in the privacy of one's own "man-cave".
Others have compared jpeg and raw to fast food and fine dining. That analogy holds to an extent, since fast food can satisfy your hunger but find dining is not just a meal but an experience. However, I think a closer metaphor is the behaviour of the diner themselves. In a rush, starving right now? Grab yourself a takeaway jpeg - it requires no thought. Hungry, but can't be bothered to cook? It's the jpeg ready meal for you. Delicious, often well-made, but with no more effort to prepare than is taken standing in front of the microwave shouting "hurry!". Your "input" is in the supermarket, choosing what flavours to enjoy but once your choice is made you are stuck with it. Confident in your culinary skills? Understand flavours and their interaction? Have the time to prep and cook? Then your ingredients should be raw... You can lovingly prepare your signature dish, tasting at each stage, of course - and produce something tasty - or something overdone and indigestible (hello HDR...)
There we have it. Let me leave you with this thought - next time you are in a restaurant, be it McDonald's finest or Le Manoir aux quat'saisons - see how long it takes you to choose from the menu and how much you visualise the meal you are to eat. A couple of seconds? jpeg for you, sir - would you like to go large Why not have a Big Mb and fries? Asking the waiter detailed questions about the origins of the wagu beef in the Wellington? Hello Mr Raw, your usual table...?