You don't need a middle ground, because archiving every photo you've ever taken is dumb, and the amount of space the actual keepers take up should be fairly trivial on hard drives and DVDs (or clouds).
And if it causes you any issue in space problems, archiving all of your keepers in RAW is also frankly a little dumb, too. There are a lot of photos that you should pretty much know you'll never want to edit again.
So 3 categories of photos:
1) Non-keepers. Don't keep any copies of these anywhere.
2) Keepers that you have no earthly reason to want to edit again: JPEG
3) Keepers that you think you may need to re-edit (especially portrait/wedding client stuff): RAW
And the tiered nature of the above should easily keep sizes down to being very affordable. If, let's say, the ratios of the above are something like 60%, 30%, 10%, then the average amount of space a photo will eventually take up at the time of snapping = about 4 megabytes. Which means that you have to take about 1,000 photos per DVD, and something like
quarter million photos per modern hard drive.
Taking the time to shoot raw, only to save everything as a JPEG, is kinda like shoot film, making 4x5 prints, then tossing out the negatives.
That's a terrible comparison. You need negatives to make more prints. Whereas you do not need RAWs to make more prints.
And in fact, RAWs
do not lead to better prints than jpegs do, unless you have some need of re-editing for a different look (in which case save the RAW by all means, see above)
Bottom line: Jpegs were specifically designed as the smallest format that isn't detectible as low quality by the human eye for photographic images. So as long as the image looks how you want it, save it in jpeg, and you'll be fine. RAW is specifically designed for widest editing latitude, so save RAW if you need to edit.
It's just a simple matter of using tools for their intended purposes.
