Must WalMart grow? And at ever-increasing rates?

The author doesn't like WalMart and that it is Too big to fail.

I accept his criticism that WalMart has injured many small towns and now lack a commercial infrastructure. But you know what, if WalMart disappeared, new capitalists would restart their bakeries and also the “butcher, traditional clothiers, shoe salesman, repair shops, printers” and so forth.

I ignore his statement that 

James Kunstler has the seminal insight on the real underlying cancer infecting our society, and that is this: the notion that we can get something for nothing. 

I ignore it as it 
1. implies that people were "better" in the past and  
2. because such an implied call to morality is bound to fail as it has been bound to fail by moralists for thousands of years.

But I am curious about the author's claim that 

Wal-Mart's business model, like everything else American, relies on ever-increasing rates of growth.

Of course WalMart needs to be profitable (even a co-op does) but why "ever-increasing rates of growth?" 

The author asserts it but don't offer any proof that it is true in a theoretical or historical sense.

A steady-state model would change (lower) the share price at Wall Street since expectations of future growth (at any rate) would be gone. And career expectations of people who already work at WalMart would change i.e. fewer no stores so fewer promotions etc. 

But why wouldn't WalMart still be a healthy organization in a steady-state mode?

My criticism may appear nit-picky but it is not: understanding the details of how things work is essential.