Wow, you are a whole lot less cynical than I am, because when I look at American businesses, the operation of the hyper-growth mindset in practice, and the consequences of policies and practices that assume sustained exponential growth, I don't see these values reflecting back.
Corporations do not value employees any more than the man turning a crank values the cogs.
The purpose of Capitalism is free-association based capital allocation for generating a profit, not to exponentially increase profit. There is no arbitrary outsized multiplication definition attached, nor is there an arbitrary small level of profit under which it's no longer considered Capitalism.
Costco and Walmart are blatantly Capitalist entities, they operate with minuscule 2-3% net income margins.
Which isn't evidence of the aforementioned point. I'll grant you "exponential" isn't mathematically correct - it's more a turn of phrase. But the profit margins here are strategic.
Costco's gross income per square foot is much higher than Walmart's while their margin is half that of Walmart's. Costco is more valuable, and makes less profit. This is because Costco's aim is to provide the best value for its members [whom usually have more disposable income]. It does this by jockeying for the best bulk price, increasing efficiency, and providing good pay and benefits to its workers. Costco is a shining example of the idea of the corporation being a partner with the employees.
Walmart's aim is to control markets, and does so by eliminating the potential for price competition and then using its buying power to force sellers to bow to its whims. Costco could make much more profit by treating its workers the way Walmart does, but chooses not to, because its value proposition is different.
Costco will also probably not be able to compete for long, not because it isn't valued well, but because Amazon and Walmart will eventually take over every remaining obstacle to the consumer's wallet. Walmart is also slowly increasing its revenue per square foot so it doesn't have to keep fighting a losing battle online.
There isn't really one dominant one, but none of those anywhere near that mark are even remotely like your description.
You seem to have confused the fact that several different value systems share a limited tolerance for value systems with differing life goals with them all being a single value system with a highly subjective life goal as a central plank.
Such a value system exists, too, but is by no means dominant.
Both Patterson and Travis Kalanick are exceptionally virtuous men by this value system. They were ruthless drivers of efficiency, willing to ignore any obstacles in the pursuit of making their businesses bigger and more profitable. Other adherents to this value system include Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Bill Gates, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Steve Jobs, and Paul Graham.
By contrast, the dominant value system in America today is marked by different tenets: 1) the primary purpose of life - of which economic activity is only one facet - is self-fulfillment and emotional gratification 2) it is virtuous to pursue such goals for yourself as long as you don't interfere with other peoples' pursuit of such goals 3) rules and regulations exist to enforce #2 on behalf of the powerless, and those who break those rules are by definition evil and 4) the employee/employer relationship should be a partnership where the employer should provide purpose and direction in accord with the employee's value system, and in return the employee helps the employer accomplish their business goals. Interestingly, both the Left and the Right of an increasingly divided America subscribe to this value system, they just define "self fulfillment and emotional gratification" differently.
The two value systems aren't entirely at odds with each other, but they aim toward entirely different purposes, and so naturally they conflict at several points. When this happens, things that may be considered the height of virtue under one value system are morally abhorrent to another one.