I'll give an example. I shoot mostly business portraits, and often a guy's tie is not tight or a little askew, or there are some wrinkles in a shirt, or there are stray hairs sticking out, and I have found it is going to take more time to send them to the mirror and correct it, and maybe it still isn't right, than the time it is going to take me to fix it in Photoshop.
Here's another having to do with both composition and camera settings. First image is straight out of the camera. I deliberately underexposed the image to preserve the nice sky, knowing that the dynamic range of the camera could capture both detail in the sky and the underside of the bridge. This is an example of getting it right in the camera - capturing all the detail possible in the scene, and "working it" in post. Most of the GIRIC guys would say the first image is a mistake. Underexposed, faded colors, etc etc etc. I say they are wrong. The edited result could never have been captured in the camera, even with the Ken Rockwell approach to set saturation, contrast, sharpening to max, and color mode to vivid.
So while I agree that it is important to get it right in the camera, you need to understand fully what that really means - and in many situations, the untouched out of camera image is ugly.