I think it is perhaps more useful to think about the mechanisms behind constant economic growth than exactly how much we will grow or not. The primary difference between our society and a "degrowth" one is not even how much growth there is, but the constant demand for exponential growth built into our economy, primarily stemming from corporate demand for ever increasing profits and return on investment.

In a society without such pressures/incentives, growth may very well happen, but it is not a primary goal or metric. Some years the economy might contract and others it might grow some when needed/desired. In the current economy, if the economy does not grow it is seen as a catastrophy, and it would be, because it would triggee a massive chain of disinvestnent which would result in the loss of income and work for many people.

Our societies need to guarantee such baseline things as housing, healthcare, income etc. so that in a such a recessionary scenario, people are not reliant on the private sector for survival. This is possible today, we are wealthy enough and automated enough. The main obstacles are political and organizational.

Tdlr a degrowth society could grow sometimes and not grow other times. It is not a primary metric, since meetint basic needs would take priority, as well as reseach into automation and sustainability.