I'm a big believer in keeping things simple and having enough control in camera so that post is kept to a minimum. I'm a fine art photographer and I shoot mostly in cities. I sell my work online and will probably sell in the neighbourhood of 500 images this year. Here's my workflow. First off, I'm still using Photoshop 6.0, it's old but it does everything I want it to. As soon as I open the image I hit 'autocontrast', then I crop the image, resize it and finally sharpen it. That works 99% of the time.
I think I listen too much to people here... I expose to the right by a 3rd of a stop... so my images out of camera all look overexposed with little contrast and even less saturation. But that is what post is for... fixing what I broke.
I think that workflow is a very personal thing in some ways, but for me, it's all about shooting the perfect negative (as Ansel Adams would say) and then extracting as much out of it in post as I can. That means exposing to the right (ETTR) and then making a fair amount of adjustments in post. I wouldn't see much point in shooting RAW otherwise. To some people, that translates as I can't expose properly and rely on post to fix my mistakes. This is exactly the opposite of the truth. It's more difficult to get a good ETTR exposure than a "proper exposure" that the camera handles well in auto and semi-auto modes 90% of the time.
On the other hand, I don't like heavy-handed editing (cloning, healing brush, etc.), especially with nature shots where people remove every objectionable leave, water bubble, stone, or branch and end up with some pristine environment around their "natural" subject. The same applies to portraits and perfect skin, etc. If you can't recognize the person from their portrait, you've gone too far.
For me, the balance is trying to get the best and cleanest exposure possible and then making exposure and color adjustments in post to produce an image that reflects how I saw the scene.